The plaintiff's claim was dismissed (Plaintiff = Pilot Ink's rights invalid). This is the 312th case to be declared "invalid" by the Intellectual Property High Court.
The plaintiff's claim was dismissed (Plaintiff = Pilot Ink's rights invalid). This is the 312th case to be declared "invalid" by the Intellectual Property High Court.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zKYti2C0ysRlKPFEMIWPZfHnKxfzpK8n/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103290795915107156428&rtpof=true&sd=true
Pilot Ink Co., Ltd., the patent holder, was defeated in an invalidation trial (Invalid 2014-800168) by Mitsubishi Pencil Co., Ltd., which is believed to be an interested party, at the Japan Patent Office's trial division.
Mitsubishi Pencil Co., Ltd., the petitioner for the trial, presented various prior art documents as Exhibit A.
These Exhibit A do not include the three documents (JP Patent Publication No. 10-036725), (JP Patent Publication No. 2005-089548), and (JP Patent Publication No. 2005-088308) that were presented to the applicant by the examiner at the Japan Patent Office examination stage.
The examiner at the Japan Patent Office did not even look at the Exhibit A submitted by the petitioner for the trial and ruled that "the description of the scope of the patent claim for the present invention does not meet the requirements stipulated in Article 36, Paragraph 6, Item 2 of the Patent Act, and therefore should be invalidated." Article 36, Paragraph 6, Item 2 of the Patent Act refers to "violation of the clarity requirement."
Here again, the weak judgment ability of the examiner at the Japan Patent Office is proven.
The patent holder, Pilot Ink Co., Ltd., filed a lawsuit with the Intellectual Property High Court against the decision of the examiner at the Japan Patent Office to invalidate the invention, but the lawsuit was dismissed as mentioned above.
The Intellectual Property High Court's decision largely followed the Japan Patent Office's decision, stating that "all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed."
It is not permissible to grant a patent based on the careless judgment of an examiner at the Japan Patent Office examination stage.
Therefore, I believe that the Japan Patent Office should not have granted a patent to Pilot Ink Co., Ltd.'s application.
Here, I have listed the "FI" and "F-term" from the "application information" of this patent publication (JP Patent Publication No. 2006-335848) on the second to sixth sheets of this Excel document.
In addition, I have attached documents such as "Selection of search terms/classifications (FI, F-term) and creation of search logic formulas," "Specific examples," "Searches using insufficient and irrelevant "logical search formulas" conducted by searchers at a registered search organization," and "Patent documents that searchers at a registered search organization (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 #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