It's crazy that patents can be granted for 'inventions' that are nothing more than common sense. Being the first mover on hiring a patent attorney and filing the paperwork should not be rewarded.
I suppose drawing a definitive line where common sense ends and invention begins is difficult so we end up with the current system.
"Not common sense" is not the legal test for patentability. But it is in effect incorporated within the requirements that a patentable invention be novel, have an inventive step, and be non-obvious (assessed without the benefit of hindsight).
The US Government could dispute the patent claim if they think the so-called invention is not an invention.
Patent disputes in the United States arise in federal jurisdiction.
In relation to a patent infringement matters commenced in the US District Court of the relevant judicial circuit, it can be appealed to the Court of Appeals. In theory it can then be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (as happened in Google v. Oracle), if that court thinks its intervention is warranted.
In relation to issues arising from the grant of a patent (not an infringement action), an appeal can be made to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and then to the Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, if that court thinks its intervention is warranted.
I read below this is working its way through the appeals process but I'm not sure about its status.
Basically that, plus swapping the carts when more trays are needed at the inlet, plus putting advertising on everything. How "putting an ad on a visible surface" even passes the smell test is beyond me, but those claims are valid it seems...
Look at the claims, not the general descriptions. "A better stapler" may just be a stapler, but that description elides the novel mechanism contained within. (There may be no novel mechanism here. I don't know. I'm not a cart expert.)
If you look at the claims they actually patented this (I translated it into English):
> For a scanner with a near and far end, position one cart near the near end. Remove a tray from the cart. Pass it through the scanner. Put the tray in a second cart at the far end of the scanner. Move the second cart to the near end of the scanner.
I'm not exaggerating. That's what claim 1 says. If you do that they can sue you for infringement.
The subordinate claims talk about stackable trays, but you only have to infringe claim 1 to be infringing. Claim 1 is written as broadly as possible in order to "catch" as many infringers as possible, and then the subordinate claims are there in case the courts actually rule that claim 1 was too broad.
So you can say "Fine, we can't patent using a cart to move trays, but what about claim 3? We patented using stackable trays! That's very novel!"
I’m usually one to defend patents on the grounds that the claims are far more narrow than the general idea being criticized in internet comments… that being said, claim 1 is, on its face, very broad. Like super broad. I’d be curious to check out the prosecution history and the spec on this to see if there’s anything limiting in there. Because in plain language, claim 1 is … broad.
