The appellant's claim was dismissed (appellant = Mitsui Mining & Smelting's rights are invalid).
The appellant's claim was dismissed (appellant = Mitsui Mining & Smelting's rights are invalid).
This is the 45th revision that has been declared "invalid" by the Intellectual Property High Court.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12a2YSC65itYnabhDmwgcJRygf3FgjO6u/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103290795915107156428&rtpof=true&sd=true
The appellant's claim was dismissed (appellant = Mitsui Mining & Smelting's rights are invalid).
This is the 45th revision that has been declared "invalid" by the Intellectual Property High Court.
It is unclear whether the plaintiff Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co., Ltd., the patent holder, has verified the validity of its patent No. 4,274,630 (a method for manufacturing spinel-type lithium manganese oxide).
"Validity" means, for example, conducting an "invalidation document investigation" on the company's patent, to be confident that the company's patent is solid even if an "invalidation trial" is filed by a third party such as an interested party.
Nevertheless, believing that the patent granted by the Japan Patent Office is valid, Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co., Ltd. sued the defendant, JGC Catalysts & Chemicals Co., Ltd., for patent infringement.
First, the Tokyo District Court ruled that "1. The defendant shall not use the method described in the attached Defendant's Method List. 2.
The defendant shall not use, transfer, or export the product described in the attached Product List. 3.
The defendant shall destroy the product described in the preceding paragraph." and won the case.
However, the Intellectual Property High Court found that the appellant's third defense that the patent for corrected invention 4 should be invalidated for lack of inventive step was well-founded, and the appellant lost the case.
As the basis for this, the Intellectual Property High Court cited "Document A1" (JP Patent Publication No. 11-7956) presented by the defendant, JGC Catalysts and Chemicals Co., Ltd., in the Tokyo District Court as a prior art document.
This document was not found at the examination stage. The searcher (KX14) of the IPCC, a registered search organization, presented two "Document Y" documents, different from the above "Document A1" to the supervisor (L133).
Meanwhile, the examiner (Satoshi Yokoyama) who examined the patent application in question accepted the two documents presented at face value and issued a notice of refusal.
After that, the applicant submitted a "Procedural Amendment" and the examiner (Satoshi Yokoyama) made a "Decision to Register" and the applicant successfully became the patent owner.
However, the patent owner lost the case at the Intellectual Property High Court as described above.
The root cause of this case is that the Patent Office was unable to find "Document A1" (JP Patent Publication No. 11-7956) presented at the Intellectual Property High Court. If only the IPCC searcher (KX14) had found "Document A1" (JP Patent Publication No. 11-7956).
There was a problem with the "examination" (search) at the Patent Office examination stage, and I believe this is evidence that the [search formula] was not performed correctly.
In the "Search Report" by the searcher (KX14), in the "Characteristics of the Invention" section, there are some traces of an attempt to correctly capture the "technical subject matter" described in all [claims].
However, as soon as the search formula was created, the content suddenly became childish, arbitrary, and ad hoc.
The formula was created only within the theme code "4G048" heavy metal inorganic compound (II) (category: inorganic chemistry).
The number of screening results was only 291.
This does not include "Document A1" (JP Patent Publication No. 11-7956). The examiner issued a "Notice of Refusal" based on the two prior art documents presented by the searcher (KX14). After that, the examiner made a "patent decision" and the patent was registered.
It is not acceptable for the patent office examiner (Satoshi Yokoyama) to grant a patent based on an insufficient "examination."
Therefore, I believe that the Japan Patent Office should not have granted a patent to the application of Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co., Ltd.
Incidentally, the classifications (FI and F-terms) of the "Application Information" of "Document A1" (JP Patent Publication No. 11-7956) are listed to the right of the publication.
The classifications that are common to this patent (JP Patent Publication No. 2000-327332) are highlighted in pink.
There are many in pink. This makes it a mystery why the examiners at the Japan Patent Office were unable to find this patent document.
Here, the "FI" and "F-terms" of the "Application Information" of this patent publication are listed from the second sheet onwards in this Excel document.
In addition, I am attaching documents such as "Selection of search terms and classifications (FI, F-terms) and creation of search logic formulas", "Specific examples", "Searches conducted by searchers of a registered search agency using insufficient and irrelevant "logical search formulas"", and "Patent documents that searchers of a registered search agency (AIRI Co., Ltd.) could not find".
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HbNt9hLUBFNm0Lw37czHAj_-JhYjRMAC/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103290795915107156428&rt pof=true&sd=true
（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 #どうする特許庁 #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 #特許・情報フェア＆コンファレンス #東京ビッグサイト #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