REPLY ASSIST:

For this week's discussion we analyzed the You Be the Judge Connect Video, which presented a small claims lawsuit dispute between Maureen Garner and Samuel Higgins. The case revolved around Ms. Garner's claim that she patented a unique process for cataloging and filing customer information on her online shoe-buying platform. According to her. This process involves collecting specific customer data, including home location, shipping address, credit card information, and shoe preferences. She organizes this information into individual customer files, allowing customers to easily purchase shoes online.

Ms. Garner alleged that Mr. Higgins, who works for a competing online shoe store called Flights of Fancy, stole her patented process. However, Mr. Higgins argued that his store had been using a similar process for years at their physical location and simply adapted it for their online platform when they launched it in 2002. He claimed that cataloging customer information is a widespread practice among online businesses and not proprietary.

To evaluate this case, I referred to our online textbook, which outlines the four criteria for patent protection: the subject matter must be patentable, the object must be new, useful, and nonobvious. Applying these criteria, Ms. Garner's patent does not meet the fourth requirement, as her process seems obvious and is something that another person with ordinary skill could have developed.

In the final verdict, the judge ruled that Mr. Higgins did infringe upon Ms. Garner's patent, but unintentionally. However, the judge also deemed Ms. Garner's patent invalid, as it did not meet the novelty and Non obviousness requirements. The judge concluded that Mr. Higgins did not need to change his business practices, as his process is like those used by many other online stores.