The plaintiff's claim was dismissed (Plaintiff = X's rights invalid). This is the 363rd updated case in which the Intellectual Property High Court has ruled a right invalid, and this is one related to an invalidation trial.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed (Plaintiff = X's rights invalid).
This is the 363rd updated case in which the Intellectual Property High Court has ruled a right invalid, and this is one related to an invalidation trial.
 

 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/197y-pYjL-otDsMRjSouo3QpLjr09L8WK/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103290795915107156428&rtpof=true&sd=true
 
After the patent was confirmed by the Japan Patent Office, an invalidation trial was filed by interested parties and the patent was found to be "invalid" (April 11, 2023), and the Intellectual Property High Court subsequently ruled the patent to be "invalid" (December 21, 2023).
 
The patent holder lost an invalidation trial (Invalidation 2020-800119) filed by Euglena Co., Ltd., which is believed to be an interested party, in the Patent Office, which ruled that "the patent for the invention related to claim 1 of Patent No. 6271790 is invalid."
 
The Chief Judge of the Patent Office, Takanobu Morii, and others ruled that "the patent for the invention related to claim 1 of Patent No. 6271790 is invalid."
 
In the ruling, the reason for invalidation 2 (lack of inventive step) was that "the present invention could have been easily made by a person skilled in the art prior to the filing of the application based on the contents described in any of Exhibits A-1 to A-3 and the publicly known and well-known technology described in Exhibits A-5-1 to A-5-3, and therefore cannot be patented pursuant to Article 29, Paragraph 2 of the Patent Act, and the patent for the present invention falls under Article 123, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Patent Act and should be invalidated."
 
Furthermore, the judgement also stated that "(Judgment on lack of inventive step) The patent for the invention at issue was granted in violation of Article 29, Paragraph 2 of the Patent Act and falls under Article 123, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Patent Act, and therefore should be invalidated based on invalidation reason 2 of the invalidation reasons asserted by the plaintiff."
 
The JPO judges (Takanobu Morii et al.) cited as their basis Exhibits A-1 (technical paper), A-2 (technical paper), A-3 (technical paper), and A-5 (Exhibits 1 to 3) (three patent documents) presented by Euglena Co., Ltd., the plaintiff in the invalidation trial.
 
Here, "Exhibit 1" (technical paper) refers to the output of the Wayback Machine webpage for "Celsoan EGF Pro Series "Celsoan Cleansing Oil" (product introduction website of Biolink Co., Ltd.), August 11, 2013 (registration date), <https://web.archive.org/web/20130811061328/http://www.biolink-hanbai.com/EGF_pro/egf_pro.htm>, November 13, 2020 (output date).
 
In addition, "Exhibit 2" (technical paper) refers to the output of the Wayback Machine webpage for "Recept II Cleansing Milk" (website of MD Cosmetics Sales Co., Ltd.), June 5, 2013 (registration date).
 
In addition, "Exhibit 3" (technical paper) refers to the output of the Wayback Machine webpage for "Daylight Shake Shake Cleansing" (product sales website of Amazon.c), and the Wayback Machine webpage for o.j. Machin September 14, 2008 (registration date)
 
Then, "Exhibits 1 to 3 of Patent Document 5" (three patent documents) are (JP Patent Publication No. 2006-225266), (JP Patent Publication No. 2009-143878), and (JP Patent Publication No. 2002-241260), which are listed as "publicly known/well-known technologies."
 
The patent holder appealed to the Intellectual Property High Court against the invalidation trial decision.
 
The Intellectual Property High Court ruled that "the present invention could easily have been invented by a person skilled in the art based on the matters described in Exhibit 1 and Exhibits 1 to 3 of Patent Document 5, etc., and there was no error in the decision in this case," and he lost the case.
 
The Intellectual Property High Court lists Exhibit 1 (technical paper) as a prior art document.
 
Furthermore, on page 9 of the judgment, it states, "The decision in this case merely objectively states the fact that the difference between the present invention and the invention of Exhibit 1 is related to the excluded configuration, and that the excluded configuration was included in the scope of the patent claims due to the circumstances recognized in 1 above.
 
It is clear that the decision did not determine, as the plaintiff claims, that 'the amendment in this case has no technical meaning and its inventive step is denied.'
 
The plaintiff's above argument is merely a deliberate misinterpretation and criticism of the explanation in the decision in this case and is unacceptable."
 
Furthermore, regarding the second reason for cancellation 1 (misjudgment of inventive step in which the invention of Exhibit 1 is a cited invention), (1) the plaintiff claims that the premise of the decision in this case in stating the meaning of the amendment in this case and denying the inventive step was incorrect (see Section 3.1(1) above).
 
However, the decision in this case merely objectively states the fact that the difference between the present invention and the invention of Exhibit 1 is related to the excluded configuration in this case, and that the excluded configuration in this case was included in the scope of the patent claims due to the circumstances recognized in 1 above.
 
It is clear that the decision did not determine, as the plaintiff claims, that "the amendment in this case has no technical meaning and its inventive step is denied."
 
The plaintiff's above argument is merely a deliberate misinterpretation and criticism of the explanation in the decision in this case, and there is no room for adoption. " In the end, the patent in this case was invalidated and expired on May 24, 2024.
 
On the other hand, there is something that was pointed out by the examiner in the invalidation trial. "Section 8: Regarding the petition for reopening of the trial"
 
The respondent stated in the petition for reopening of proceedings filed on March 12, 2023, that it had appealed the judgment in a separate lawsuit regarding the patent in question and had received a notice of record of the appeal from the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court on February 2, 2023 (1).
 
If the proceedings continue as they are, the decision on the invalidation trial in question will be made immediately before the decision on the appeal.
 
The respondent asserted the following reasons for reopening the proceedings: - If an invalidation trial is made, the respondent will have to file a lawsuit to set aside the decision, which is not appropriate from the perspective of litigation economics.
 
If the invalidation trial is to be heard after waiting for the Supreme Court's decision, the Japan Patent Office and the court There is no risk of discrepancy in judgment between the Patent Office and the court, and it is reasonable.
 
However, what is being reviewed in the Supreme Court is the judgment on the violation of the support requirement made by the district court in the first instance and the Intellectual Property High Court in the appeal instance.
 
On the other hand, the judgment that the present application is invalid in the invalidation trial is related to lack of inventive step, and since the basis provisions and reasons are different, there is no discrepancy in the judgment of invalidity between the Patent Office and the court.
 
Therefore, the above argument of the respondent is not accepted. Therefore, the Chief Judge does not recognize the need to reopen the trial. ".
 
Here, the case being reviewed in the Supreme Court's Third Petty Bench is No. 10029 of Reiwa 4 (No. 22071 of Reiwa 2).
 
As of December 30, 2024, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court has made a decision on this matter.
 
Regarding Case No. 10029 of 2022 (No. 22071 of 2020), we have uploaded it separately as the 108th case and have currently put it back into draft form.
 
However, we plan to upload an updated version with details once a decision has been made by the Supreme Court and that decision has been finalized.
 

（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