The judge decided he had infringed on her patent however the patent
by unintentionally using the same product process but found her
patent to be invalid because it was not novel (new) or non-obvious,
meaning “the invention must not be one that a person of ordinary skill
in the trade could have easily discovered” (Kubasek et al., 2019).
Since patent law requires a patent to be patentable, novel, useful, and
nonobvious, and the plaintiff’s design failed to meet two of the four
criteria, I think the judge got it right. a Before hearing the verdict, my
initial reaction was that they were both just trying to provide great
customer service and took reasonable measures, that most people in
their industry would take, to give that good service.
Reference
Kubasek, N., Browne, N. M., Herron, D., Dhooge, L., & Barkacs, L.
(2019). Dynamic Business Law (5th ed.). McGraw Hill.
