When it comes to patents there are five basic criteria that need to be
met: 1. It must be a new and useful process or machine, 2. It must
have utility or be useful, 3. It must be Novel or new, 4. It must be
"non-obvious," which means it's function cannot be something that is
the next logical step of an invention that is already patented, 5. The
process cannot be disclosed to the public before applying for the
patent. There seems to be one specific criterion that was not met,
this is number 4, to me as most businesses progressed to online
platforms in the early 2000's it was a natural transition to gravitate
towards having buyer profiles online in order to gear advertisements
towards specific consumers as well as allowing consumers ease of
access to finding their next purchase based on what they have
bought previously. The judge, in this case, decided that though the
defendant infringed upon the patent, the patent itself did not meet
the criteria because it was not new or novel. I agree with the judge
that this patent should not have been given, however, in 2001 the
process may have been considered new but it was also the next
logical step in the sales process.
Reference
Kubasek, N., Browne, N. M., Herron, D., Dhooge, L., & Barkacs, L.
(2019). Dynamic Business Law (5th ed.). McGraw Hill.
