Reply Assist with a follow-up question to the post: (V)

Hello Everyone

The case presented to us in chapter 12 regarding patent law and intellectual property was a tough one to assess. In order for a patent to be legal and valid has to meet several pieces of criteria such as able to be used, a clear description of how to use it, it must be deemed new and never done before and last it has to be considered not obvious as related to a change to something already invented. It appears that the plaintiff failed to prove that her patent was clear on how to use the invention so that others also in the same field as her could not also use the same process. The judge decided to rule in the plaintiffs favor but also deemed that her patent was invalid due to lack of novelty where the patent was not disclosed to the public before the patent was filed and not considered new and cannot be patented. I agree with the judge's decision because the patent of the plaintiff lacked obviousness and should have performed her research prior to applying for a patent for her process. She should have conducted a patent invalidity search which is an extensive search focused on locating anything that has potential to challenge the validity of an existing patent.