Dismissal of the plaintiff's claim (Plaintiff = Tanita's rights invalid).
Dismissal of the plaintiff's claim (Plaintiff = Tanita's rights invalid).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1toCZuJcs0nbFm1Hz4jh67Gpb82TI_jZB/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103290795915107156428&rtpof=true&sd=true
This is an example of a messy search formula.
Dismissal of the plaintiff's claim (Plaintiff = Tanita's rights invalid).
This is the second case where the Tokyo District Court determined that there was a violation of the correction requirements, and the Intellectual Property High Court determined that the product was non-infringing, and the patent was declared invalid and the rights were lost.
It seems that the plaintiff, Tanita Corporation, the patent holder, did not verify the validity of its patent No. 3,830,255 (body fat weight scale).
"Validity" means, for example, conducting an "invalidation document investigation" on the patent of one's own company, and being confident that the patent is solid even if an "invalidation trial" is filed by a third party such as an interested party.
Despite this, Tanita Corporation believed that the patent granted by the Japan Patent Office was valid and filed a lawsuit against Ohwa Medical Corporation for patent infringement.
First, the Tokyo District Court ruled that "the patent in question falls under Article 123, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the same law and should be invalidated, and the plaintiff cannot exercise the same right under Article 104-3 of the same law."
The reason given was that "the plaintiff's claim is dismissed because the patent is invalid due to violation of the correction restriction, and furthermore, the imported self-approved product is groundless due to non-satisfaction of the constituent elements, and therefore the case is dismissed as stated in the main text." Article 123, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Patent Act is the addition of new matter (when an amendment is made to add new matter), which is a "violation of amendment requirements."
On the other hand, the Intellectual Property High Court ruled that "it cannot be found that Products 1 to 8 infringe the patent right in question, none of the appellant's claims in the main suit are groundless, the original judgment is appropriate, and the present appeal is groundless."
The Intellectual Property High Court did not rule on the "invalidity of the patent due to violation of the amendment restriction" in the original court.
Considering the above, we believe that the Japan Patent Office should not have granted a patent to Tanita Corporation's application.
What we would like to emphasize here is that in the examination process at the Japan Patent Office, the only thing that was obtained by the childish and sloppy [search formula] created by the searcher (Shigeru Sato) of the registered search organization (IPCC) was "Document A."
The examiner (Akio Yasuda 3704) issued a "Notice of Reasons for Refusal" based on the cited documents obtained in this way, but the applicant avoided this by submitting a "Procedural Amendment" and ultimately won the registration.
Even though the patent was registered, the Tokyo District Court and the Intellectual Property High Court reached the above results.
To reiterate, it is unacceptable to grant a patent based on the absurdity of the search formula created by the searchers of a registered search organization and the insufficient search by the examiners of the Japan Patent Office.
I think that the examiners of the Japan Patent Office need to relearn how to conduct a proper "prior art search," not just a search.
Here, I have listed the "FI" and "F-term" from the "application information" of this patent publication on the second sheet of this Excel document.
In addition, I have attached documents such as "Selection of search terms/classifications (FI, F-term) and creation of search formulas," "Specific examples," "Searches using insufficient and irrelevant "logical search formulas" conducted by searchers of a registered search organization," and "Patent documents that searchers of a registered search organization (AIRI Co., Ltd.) could not find."
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HbNt9hLUBFNm0Lw37czHAj_-JhYjRMAC/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103290795915107156428&rt pof=true&sd=true
（hashtag）
#INPIT #JPlatPat #note #OpenAI #Claude #JPO #USPTO #KIPO #EPO #Patent #ChatGPT #GPT #ChatGPT4 #Gemini #Threads #bing #bingAI #VertexAI #AI #DX #IT #DeepSeek #Copilot #BigTech #HowtoUseAI #AIImageGeneration #ITEngineer #ITIndustry #ITCompanies #ITVentures #ITization #ITSystems #ITLiteracy #ITTools #DXization #DXPromotion #DXTalent #DXCases #DXLiteracy #IPLandscape #Generative AI #DeepLearning #Work #DeepLearning #Business #BusinessSkills #BusinessModel #BusinessOpportunities #IntellectualProperty #IntellectualPropertyStrategy #IPSchool #IntellectualProperty #IntellectualPropertyRights #IntellectualPropertyHighCourt #Patent #PatentResearch #PatentLaw #PatentOffice #PatentClassification #PatentSearch #PatentAnalysis #PatentInformation #PatentHolder #PatentInvalidationTrial #Patent #ClassificationAssignment #PriorArtSearch #InfringementInvestigation #Patent #Invention #InventionSchool #SearchLogicalFormula #Examiner #Judge #Court #ApplicationInformation #TokyoDistrictCourt #IPSolutions #IntellectualPropertyStrategy #IPManagementStrategy #IPinformation #IPwork #IPactivities #IPdepartment #IPpractice #IPpractitioner #IPofficer #IPservice #IPindustry