The plaintiff's claim was dismissed (Plaintiff = Seiren's rights invalid). This is the 322nd case in which a right has been declared "invalid" by the Intellectual Property High Court.
The plaintiff's claim was dismissed (Plaintiff = Seiren's rights invalid).
This is the 322nd case in which a right has been declared "invalid" by the Intellectual Property High Court.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xF_qKjd3RrC-0_kCdlY04xNzF07IKSSJ/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103290795915107156428&rtpof=true&sd=true
The patent holder, Seiren Co., Ltd., was defeated in an invalidation trial (Invalidation 2016-800014) by Dai Nippon Toryo Co., Ltd., a supposed interested party, and the Japan Patent Office ruled that "the patent for the invention related to claims 1 and 2 is invalid."
The JPO examiner cited "Exhibit No. 2" (JP Patent Publication No. 2008-063831) presented by the plaintiff as the basis for his ruling.
At the JPO examination stage, the searcher (KX02) did not find "Exhibit No. 2" (JP Patent Publication No. 2008-063831). Let's look at the classifications ("FI" and "F-term") in the "Application Information" of "Exhibit No. 2" (JP Patent Publication No. 2008-063831).
I compared this with the classifications given to the patent in question (JP Patent Publication No. 2011-047152) and highlighted in pink the ones that have in common.
There are quite a few. Given this, it is puzzling why the searcher (KX02) was unable to find this patent document "Exhibit No. 2" (JP Patent Publication No. 2008-063831).
The examiner (Toshihisa Kobayashi) then blindly accepted the three patent documents presented by the searcher (KX02) and presented them to the applicant.
The above-mentioned "Exhibit No. 2" (JP Patent Publication No. 2008-063831) was not included in these three documents.
The applicant submitted a written amendment, but the examiner made a "decision of refusal."
The applicant filed an appeal, submitted a written amendment, and eventually obtained a "decision to grant a patent" and successfully became the patent holder.
Meanwhile, Dai Nippon Toryo Co., Ltd., which is thought to be an interested party, filed an invalidation trial for the patent in question (Invalid 2016-800014).
As mentioned above, the right holder, Seiren Co., Ltd., lost this invalidation trial (Invalid 2016-800014), and the decision was that the patent right was invalid.
The patent owner, Seiren Co., Ltd., appealed the JPO's decision to invalidate the patent to the Intellectual Property High Court, but the appeal was dismissed.
The Intellectual Property High Court's decision largely followed the JPO's decision, stating that "the invention at issue could have been easily made by a person skilled in the art based on cited inventions and well-known art, and there was no justification for revocation."
It is not permissible to grant a patent based on a careless search by an examiner at the JPO examination stage.
Therefore, I believe that the JPO should not have granted a patent to Seiren Co., Ltd.'s application in the first place.
Here, I have listed the "FI" and "F-term" from the "Application Information" of the patent publication (JP Patent Publication 2011-047152) on the second and subsequent sheets of this Excel document.
（ハッシュタグ）
#INPIT #JPlatPat #note #生成AI #OpenAI #Claude #深層学習 #仕事 #ディープラーニング #ビジネス #ビジネススキル #ビジネスモデル #ビジネスチャンス #知財 #知財戦略 #知財塾 #知的財産 #知的財産権 #知的財産高等裁判所 #特許 #特許調査 #特許法 #特許庁 #特許事務所 #特許分類 #特許検索 #特許分析 #特許情報 #特許権者 #特許無効審判 #専利 #分類付与 #先行技術調査 #無効資料調査 #侵害調査 #侵害予防調査 #パテント #発明 #発明塾 #べらぼう #検索論理式 #審査官 #審判官 #AI #AIの活かし方 #AI画像生成 #IT #ITエンジニア #IT業界 #IT企業 #ITベンチャー #IT化 #IT系 #ITリテラシー #ITツール #DX #DX化 #DX推進 #DX人材 #DX事例 #DXリテラシー #Patent #ChatGPT #GPT #チャットGPT #ChatGPT4 #Gemini #Threads #bing #bingAI #VertexAI #一月万冊 #裁判所 #出願情報 #東京地方裁判所 #IPランドスケープ #JPO #USPTO #KIPO #EPO #知財ソリューション #知的財産戦略 #知財経営戦略 #知財情報 #知財業務 #知財活動 #知財部 #知財実務 #知財実務者 #知財担当者 #知財サービス #知財業界