In order for a patent to be granted, the subject in question must be patentable,
useful, novel or new, meaning it must not have been previously published or
planned by anyone else, and it must also be nonobvious. a For an object to be
nonobvious, it must “not be one that a person of ordinary skill in the trade
could have easily discovered” (Kubasek et. al, 2019). a The small claims
dispute video involves a plaintiff who is claiming the defendant is infringing
upon her patent for her online shoe business. a The claimed infringement
involves the process by which customers’ information is used to purchase
shoes online for a quick and convenient customer shopping experience.
The judge in the video/case study for this discussion ruled that the defendant
infringed upon the plaintiff’s patent, even though the defendant was unaware
of the patent itself. a Additionally, the judge ruled that the plaintiff’s patent was
not novel and was not nonobvious, which rendered the patent invalid. a I agree
with the ruling that the patent become invalid because the plaintiff’s patent
seemed to be a general process for any retail business offering online services,
regardless of whether they also had brick and mortar locations. a It also did not
seem nonobvious because the plaintiff was able to create this ‘process’ without
having any specific trade skill regarding computers or online programming. a It
seems that the reason for the plaintiff’s declining sales was simply due to
competition that had expanded their purchase options. a This is an indication
that the plaintiff needs to reconsider their business approach and look for
improvement opportunities to recover their sales and advance their growth.
Kubasek, N., Browne, N. M., Herron, D., Dhooge, L., & Barkacs, L. (2019).
Dynamic Business Law (5th ed.). McGraw Hill.
