And the lawyers want to know what is "fundamentally different" about it.
Mr Brady's evidence is that he came up with the idea of having movements in each half of the split face watch case for the forward and return hand movements, all controlled by an electronic integrated circuit, and that Mr Claude Ray, an experienced watchmaker, carried out the necessary design work. The eventual product, which he called a "hinged electronic watch", was based on ideas that were fundamentally different, he said, from Mrs Ehsman's patents. These matters are contested
To determine what is "fundamentally different" about Mr. Brady's watch design compared to Mrs. Ehsman's patents, one would need to analyze the specific details of both inventions. Here's how you can approach the task:
1. Research Mrs. Ehsman's patents: Look for information on the patents held by Mrs. Ehsman. Identify the key features and functions of her watch design as described in the patents. You can search for patent databases online or refer to official patent records.
2. Study Mr. Brady's evidence: Focus on the evidence presented by Mr. Brady about his watch design. According to his testimony, the key differentiating factor is the inclusion of movements in each half of the split face watch case for the forward and return hand movements, controlled by an electronic integrated circuit. Take note of any other unique aspects mentioned.
3. Compare the features: Make a side-by-side comparison of the features and functionalities of Mrs. Ehsman's patented watch design and Mr. Brady's hinged electronic watch. Pay attention to the similarities and differences between the two.
4. Analyze the fundamental differences: Consider whether the inclusion of movements in each half of the split face watch case, controlled by an electronic integrated circuit, represents a significant departure from the features described in Mrs. Ehsman's patents. Determine if Mr. Brady's design introduces new and essential elements or if it modifies the existing concepts in a substantial way.
5. Review the arguments: Evaluate the arguments from both sides to understand their positions. Assess the validity of Mr. Brady's claim that his design was fundamentally different from Mrs. Ehsman's patents.
6. Seek expert opinions: If necessary, consult experts in the field of watchmaking or patent law to gain their professional perspectives on the matter.
By following these steps, one can comprehensively analyze the evidence and arguments provided by Mr. Brady and reach a better understanding of what he considers to be "fundamentally different" about his hinged electronic watch compared to Mrs. Ehsman's patents.