In order for a patent to be filed, the item being made must hit four
criteria for the protection to be granted. First, the subject matter of
the patent must be patentable. Second, the object of the patent must
be novel. Third, the object must be useful unless it is a design. And
finally, the object must be nonobvious, meaning only ones persons
skill in their trade can make such an item and it can not be easily be
discovered (Kubasek et al., 2019).
In the case of the video, the process in which the plaintiff describes
and says is trademarked seems to be lacking in most of the criteria to
be a legitimate patent. The subject matter, online shopping, is
patentable, but the system the plaintiff describes as proprietary is
not a novel invention or design and has been used by companies for
at least a decade before this case came to light. This system is useful
for company's selling items online, but it is not nonobvious. In fact,
most company's typically will catalog their customers likes and
interests to aid in their decision making process online. It makes
shopping easier, and it gives the company solid logistical data of
what does or doesn't sell.
Based on these findings, the judge ruled that the defendant was
infringing on an existing patent unknowingly, however, because of
the defendants evidence against the plaintiff that his own company
has been using their own version of the plaintiffs system since they
started selling online, the judge ruled that the patent was not novel
or nonobvious making the patent invalid.
I do agree with the judges assessment of this case. Since the patent
was issued, then the defendant did illegally infringed on patent laws
unknowingly, but due to the rather lack luster novelty and
notoriousness of the system in question, it should not be a viable
patent.
Kubasek, N., Browne, M., Herron, D., Dhooge, L., Herron, D., Barkacs,
L. (2020). Patents. McGraw-Hill Connect.
