The plaintiff's claim was dismissed (Plaintiff=X: Hiroshi Murakami's rights are invalid). This is the 363rd update in which the Intellectual Property High Court has declared the rights invalid.
The plaintiff's claim was dismissed (Plaintiff=X: Hiroshi Murakami's rights are invalid).
This is the 363rd update in which the Intellectual Property High Court has declared the rights invalid.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Oq9J0eJEeqSniA3fH99wK-Erp4vU7MRh/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103290795915107156428&rtpof=true&sd=true
The plaintiff's claim was dismissed (Plaintiff=X: Hiroshi Murakami's rights are invalid).
This is the 363rd update in which the Intellectual Property High Court has declared the rights invalid.
After the patent right was confirmed by the Japan Patent Office, an invalidation trial was filed by an interested party and the right was found to be "invalid" (April 11, 2023), and the Intellectual Property High Court subsequently ruled the right to be "invalid" (December 21, 2023).
The patent holder, X: Murakami Hiroshi, was defeated in an invalidation trial (Invalidation 2020-800119) filed by Euglena Co., Ltd., which is believed to be an interested party, with the Japan Patent Office ruling that "the patent for the invention related to claim 1 of Patent No. 6271790 is invalid."
The Japan Patent Office's Chief Judge, Judge Morii Takanobu, and others ruled that "the patent for the invention related to claim 1 of Patent No. 6271790 is invalid."
Among them, the reason for invalidation 2 (lack of inventive step) is 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/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, it also states, "(Judgment on lack of inventive step) The patent for the present invention 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 among the reasons asserted by the plaintiff."
The JPO judges (Morii Takanobu et al.) cited as evidence "Exhibit 1" (technical paper), "Exhibit 2" (technical paper), "Exhibit 3" (technical paper), and "Exhibits 1 to 3" (three patent documents) presented by Euglena Co., Ltd.
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, Hiroshi Murakami, 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 question 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 question 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 question and is unacceptable."
Furthermore, with regard to ground 1 for cancellation in 2 (misjudgment of inventive step in which Exhibit 1 is used as a cited invention), (1) the plaintiff claims that the premise of the decision in question was incorrect in stating the meaning of the amendment in question and denying its inventive step (see Section 3.1(1) above).
However, the decision in this case only objectively states the fact that the difference between the invention in this case and the invention in Exhibit 1 is related to the configuration excluded in this case, and that the configuration excluded in this case was included in the scope of the patent claims due to the process recognized in 1 above.
It is clear that the decision did not determine that "the amendment in this case has no technical meaning and its inventive step is denied," as the plaintiff claims.
The plaintiff's above argument is merely a deliberate misinterpretation and criticism of the explanation in the decision in this case and has no room for adoption.
In the end, the patent in this case was declared invalid and expired on May 24, 2024. On the other hand, let's look at the examination stage and appeal stage of the Japan Patent Office.
The examiner of the Japan Patent Office (Toshiyuki Nakamura) presented the applicant with three prior art documents, including "Exhibit 1 in Exhibit 5" (JP Patent Publication No. 2006-225266), and issued a "Notice of Reasons for Rejection."
The patent application in this case was then rejected. The applicant was dissatisfied with this decision and requested an appeal. In the appeal, the applicant corrected claim 1 to read "surfactant (excluding those in which the surfactant is 0 to 10% by volume of the total amount)" and successfully obtained a patent decision.
What can be said here is that the "Exhibit 1" (technical paper) presented in the invalidation trial was not found and was not presented to the applicant.
This again proves that the search ability of the examiners at the Japan Patent Office and the examiners at the appeal trial is weak.
It is not acceptable to grant a patent to an applicant based on the sloppy search of the examiners at the Japan Patent Office examination stage and the weak search ability of the examiners at the appeal trial.
Therefore, I believe that the Japan Patent Office should not have granted a patent to X: Hiroshi Inoue's application.
Here, I have listed the "FI" and "F-term" from the "Application Information" of this patent publication (JP Patent Publication No. 2017-119713) on the second sheet of this Excel document.
Furthermore, I have attached materials 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 at a registered search organization", and "Patent documents that searchers at a registered search organization (AIRI Co., Ltd.) could not find".
（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