Article Summary – Intellectual Property
Essay Preview: Article Summary – Intellectual Property
Report this essay
Intellectual Property Article Summary
The restaurant business can be extremely competitive, with so many to choose from. Many chefs learn the restaurant business by working at another restaurant and slowly work his or her way up, until one day he or she may decide to open a restaurant of his or her own. What happens when a chef who worked in a restaurant decides to open their own restaurant and makes a recipe similar to the ones in the previous restaurant they work for? What happens when the restaurant is opened close to the restaurant where he or she formerly worked? That is exactly what happened to a restaurant owner in New York. Rebecca Charles is the owner of the Pearl Oyster Bar and she had hired Ed McFarland as a sous chef in her restaurant.
Business Dispute in Question
McFarland decided in March to open a similar restaurant to Rebeccas restaurant in March. After Charles found out what he was serving she brought a lawsuit against him for “a breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of corporate opportunity” (Brean, 2007). This means that Charles believes chefs should have the same privilege attorneys do with their clients. Charles also alleges that McFarland stole several recipes and is using them in his restaurant but calls them different names on the menu; Charles believes this is a violation of intellectual property and patent infringement. The case has been filed in civil court with the outcome still pending.
Court System Using
The first issue the civil court must deal with is if the recipes are patented, because the whole case revolves around that issue. In order to have a patent on the recipes Charles must prove that the recipes are novel, useful, and nonobvious (Cheeseman, 2004, 325). Charles may have a difficult time proving this, since in the restaurant business chefs often share what he or she knows with his or her employees. The court will probably ask both parties to submit the recipes they use in order to determine if the recipes are, in fact, the same. Depending on the ruling in the court, it will probably determine the how the rest of the case will go. If the courts rule that the recipes are not the same, then no intellectual property was stolen, however, if the courts rule they are the same it opens the doorway for Charles to sue in a civil case and pursue a criminal case against McFarland for stealing the recipes. Both sides will have the right to appeal any decision made by the court all the way up to the Supreme Court. This case could set a precedent for restaurant recipes in the future and will be an interesting case to follow.