Patent law is a policy that protects against violation of intellectual rights. Patent law is found in almost all manufactured services and products (Chartterjee, 2009). However, for any creation to be declared patentable, it must not be obvious, it must be useful, and it must be original (Borg, 2001). In this Case-Study, Whopper Co. claims that Bubble Company has infringed their patent product (the Gumballs). This paper will assess legal issues considered in determining whether Whopper Co. will win the case of infringement against Bubble Company.
Since Bubble Company has requested the court to cancel the patent case against them, Whopper Co. must be able to prove to the court the following issues. Foremost, Whopper Co. should affirm that the work that has been infringed is similar to the patented work in all aspects including the design, content, and structure (Borg, 2001). Whopper Co. must also show that their work was copied and not just mere ideas.
To affirm this, Whopper Co. should gather relevant evidence and present it to the court. This is because the stronger the quality of evidence, the higher the chances of winning an infringement case. Whopper Co. should present to the court a copy of their original work and a copy of the “fake” work. This concept is very important for comparison purposes to check for any unique duplication of original work in the duplicate work.
Since Whopper Co. has registered its technology and has been granted a license for its product, the court must assess whether Bubble Company’s work falls within the claims of the registered patent. On the other hand, Bubble Company should assert to the court the following issues. Bubble Company was not practicing patented product, it was not violating any act covered by the patent, it has registered its product, Whopper’s Co. patent has expired, and finally, the original work that has been infringed is invalid or has defects (Borg, 2001).
According to patent law, in a situation where a company complains about infringement, a science-based method is used to determine if there has been an infringement of a patented product (Borg, 2001). Apart from this, there must be evidence indicating that the patentee has already filed claims with the patent application (Chartterjee, 2009). In addition, a detailed investigation should be done to determine whether the product is included in the patent claim. Finally, there must be a reasonable interpretation and understanding of the claims raised by the patentee (Borg, 2001).
There are several rules that are applied in such a case. The policies include the “doctrine of peripheral definition, doctrine of central definition, or doctrine of central equivalent” (Chartterjee, 2009). The principle of central equivalent is used in most countries. The rule of central equivalent ensures that comprehensive comparison is done on functionality, appearance, effect, method, and structure of the product and creation (Chartterjee, 2009). In addition, all the technical features of the product must be analyzed and a broad comparison is done with the product in question.
In summary, the Bubble’s Company product that is being sold is similar in design and connecting method is consistent with that of the original product (Chartterjee, 2009). Bubble’s product is not registered and it is obvious that the original product has no defect nor has the license expired. Apart from this, Bubble Company’s product had effects, design, and methods comparable to that of the original product (Borg, 2001). This is no case of coincidence; it is obvious that Whopper’s patent has been infringed. Whopper Co. will obviously win this case against Bubble Company.
References
Borg, E. (2001). Knowledge, information, and intellectual property: implications for Marketing relationships, Journal of Technovation 21 (2): pp. 515–524.
Chartterjee, C. (2009). International Business Law. London: Routledge.