Video Case Study #15: Intellectual Property Get Sued

Video Case 15
Name
Institution
Date
VIDEO CASE 15
Issue: should Samuel Higgins change his business practices since Maureen Garner claims that he infringed on her patent rights of using similar online technology design for selling shoes online.
Rule: According to the judge, Mr. Higgins did not intentionally develop similar product and process, however. Mr. Higgins did not have to intentionally have come up with similar products and use similar technology to make it an infringement. The judge ruled that in this case, the patent claimed by the plaintiff was not valid because for her the patent itself was not novel or non-obvious. The judge did not see any reason for Mr. Higgins to change his business practices at all.
Analysis: the fact that Maureen Garner wanted to stop Mr. Higgins and his store because she believed that the defendant had infringed on her patent rights to the design by using a similar product and process selling shoes online. Her patent claim was not valid. Mr. Higgins did not infringe any pertinent rights Mr. Haggins arguments is valid because all online shoe products offer similar services using common designs which are obvious. For him, this was a common sense customer service, and the plaintiff did not have to claim any patent rights. The plaintiff assumed that she had a non-obvious patent that was not true in this case.
Under section 10 of the US Patent Act, the general requirement of patent protection is described in one sentence stating that " Whoever invents or discovers any new and us...