BUS 307 SNHU Business and Patent Law Plaintiff Patent Analysis Discussion

I will need my initial post first and then 2 classmate response on this topic. My class Textbook: Dynamic Business Law, Kubasek, N., et al., (2017). Dynamic business law (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Read pages 302-304. Then watch the video/case study “You Be the Judge 15: Click Here – Get Sued .” Considering the elements required for a patent (p. 302), discuss what seemed to be lacking in the plaintiff’s patent. What did the judge decide, and what was her reasoning? Do you agree with the judge’s decision? Why or why not?

undefined

To complete this assignment, review the Discussion Rubric document.

undefined

Use the following videos to inform your answers to the 4-2 Discussion.

Web Links:

Argument

https://www.viddler.com/embed/37be50a1/?f=1&autopl…

Defendant Profile

https://www.viddler.com/embed/8fc0ee71/?f=1&autopl…

Plaintiff Profile

https://www.viddler.com/embed/eef250e4/?f=1&autopl…

Defendant Reaction

https://www.viddler.com/embed/c0e674c8/?f=1&autopl…

Plaintiff Reaction

https://www.viddler.com/embed/36326200/?f=1&autopl…

Verdict

https://www.viddler.com/embed/f1a196c8/?f=1&autoplay=0&player=full&disablebranding=0

My first classmate response needed

4-2 Discussion

Dustin Massey posted Mar 24, 2021 9:17 PM

There is criteria that must be met for a patents. The four things that must be met are: the subject matter must be patentable, the object of the patent must be novel, the object must be useful, and the object must be non obvious. I think what was lacking in the plaintiff’s patent is that it didn’t quite meet the requirement that it was non obvious. This means that it needed to be something that a person of ordinary skill couldn’t discover. In the timeframe of this case, retailers were beginning to move business to the internet. The patent was for something that was a common business practice for most people in retail, but for the process of online shopping. Since this was something that most businesses would start doing online, it didn’t meet the requirement of being non obvious. The judge decided that although the defendant infringed upon the plaintiff, the patent should have never been approved in the first place since it didn’t meet the criteria. I agree with the judges decision because the patent did not meet the criteria. It should have never been approved. There would have been so many more cases for the same thing if the patent was valid since tons of businesses use the same process for online shopping.

Kubasek, N., et al., (2017). Dynamic business law (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

2nd classmate response needed

Patent law

Jen Bernasconi posted Mar 24, 2021 1:10 PM

I agree with the judges verdict that Maureen Garners patent was not non-obvious or novel. There are many other online retailers (maybe not in shoes, however Zappos originated in 1999 for online shoe sales) that have been utilizing this customer service process previously. Therefore her idea for the patent is not new. As far as non-obvious, of course it is safe to assume that any company entering the eCommerce market for any sale of a good would need a process to gather information and streamline the sales process to make it more efficient, effective and simple for the consumer. This brings me to the question of did Ms Garner do research in other companies using this process before bringing it to the USPTO to be patented? I assume not. I agree with the judges decision. I feel as though Maureen is trying to create a competitive advantage as she had prior before others entered the eCommerce world of shoe sales. Unfortunately, she has competition now and she will have to streamline and make her process even more efficient to gain more market share and get the competitive advantage back.

Kubasek, N., et al., (2017). Dynamic business law (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Christofferson, Trish (July 5, 2019) 20 Years, 20 Milestones: How Zappos Grew Out of Just Shoes Retrieved from Zappos.com