Partial cancellation of the decision (defendant = Mitsuba's rights are partially invalid). This is the 309th case in which the Intellectual Property High Court has ruled that "rights are partially invalid."
Partial cancellation of the decision (defendant = Mitsuba's rights are partially invalid).
This is the 309th case in which the Intellectual Property High Court has ruled that "rights are partially invalid."
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F6DMZhzhCWrXuJbA3I8FC5NH-PFQOTkO/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103290795915107156428&rtpof=true&sd=true
Partial cancellation of the decision (defendant = Mitsuba's rights are partially invalid).
This is the 309th case in which the Intellectual Property High Court has ruled that "rights are partially invalid."
The patent owner, Mitsuba Co., Ltd., was sued for invalidation (Invalidation 2015-800177) by Asmo Co., Ltd., which is thought to be an interested party, but the Japan Patent Office's Trial and Appeal Department ruled that the request for trial was invalid, and the patent was upheld.
Asmo Co., Ltd. was dissatisfied with this decision and appealed to the Intellectual Property High Court.
The Intellectual Property High Court ruled that "among the grounds for cancellation asserted by the plaintiff, there are grounds for cancellation 2 relating to inventions 1 and 2 and ground for cancellation 5 relating to invention 3, and therefore the decision in this case should be set aside without even having to rule on the remaining grounds for cancellation."
Here, "ground for cancellation 2" means "the invention could have been easily made by those in the art by combining the matters described in Exhibit 1 (JP Patent Publication No. 10-503640) with Exhibit 2 (JP Patent Publication No. 2000-166185) and Exhibit 3 (JP Patent Publication No. 11-178288)."
In addition, "Reason for Cancellation 5" is "Reason for Invalidation 4" and is "Invention 3 is a combination of the matters described in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3, and the well-known art described in Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5, and further by combining the matters described in Exhibit 6 (JP Patent Publication No. 3-500960) which a person skilled in the art could easily make."
At the examination stage of the Japan Patent Office, the examiner (Hideki Oie) found "Exhibit 2" (JP Patent Publication No. 2000-166185) and "Exhibit 6" (JP Patent Publication No. 3-500960) in "Exhibit 1" (JP Patent Publication No. 10-503640) and presented them to the applicant.
In addition, "Exhibit 3" (JP Patent Publication No. 11-178288) was either not found or not presented to the applicant.
The applicant submitted a "Written Amendment", but the examiner (Hideki Oie) made a "Rejection Decision".
The applicant appealed and took the case to arbitration, and after the case was transferred to pre-examination, the examiner (Hideki Oie) ultimately issued a "decision to grant a patent."
However, as mentioned above, the Intellectual Property High Court ruled the patent invalid.
In the end, the examiner (Hideki Oie) found some of the documents ("Patent Document 1," "Patent Document 2," and "Patent Document 6"), but was unable to find "Patent Document 3" (JP Patent Publication No. 11-178288), and made an incorrect decision.
Here again, the weak research and judgment abilities of the examiners at the Patent Office are proven.
It is not acceptable to grant a patent based on the careless judgment of an examiner at the Patent Office examination stage.
In addition, it seems that the rights to this patent were maintained with [Claim 2] as an independent claim.
Here, I have listed the "FI" and "F-term" from the "Application Information" of this patent publication (JP Patent Publication No. 2008-253137) on the second and subsequent sheets of this Excel document.
In addition, I will attach documents such as "Selection of search terms and classifications (FI, F-terms) and creation of search formulas", "Specific examples", "Searches using insufficient and irrelevant "logical search formulas" conducted by searchers of registered research organizations", and "Patent documents that searchers of registered research organizations (AIRI Co., Ltd.) could not find".
(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 #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 #べらぼう