The plaintiff's claim was dismissed (the plaintiff's rights are invalid). This is the 345th case in which the Intellectual Property High Court has found the rights invalid.

2025年2月21日 17:00

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YokQvwLT6Tw0LxwL7pOtwSigoMQFvEiF/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103290795915107156428&rtpof=true&sd=true

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed (the plaintiff's rights are invalid).

This is the 345th case in which the Intellectual Property High Court has found the rights invalid. After the patent right was finalized by the Japan Patent Office, an invalidation trial was filed by an interested party and the right was found to be invalid.

The Intellectual Property High Court then also ruled the right to be invalid.

The patent owner, Wireless Future Technologies Inc., lost an invalidation trial (Invalidation 2017-800018) filed by Sony Corporation, which is believed to be an interested party, and the Japan Patent Office ruled that "the patent for the invention related to claims 1 to 16 before the correction is invalidated."

The Japan Patent Office examiner ruled that "There is reason for invalidation grounds 6 to 8, so the patent for the invention related to claims 1 to 16 of this patents should be invalidated pursuant to the provisions of Article 123, Paragraph 1, Item 4 of the Patent Act."

Here, (Reason for invalidation 6) is, "The amendment made in the procedural amendment dated October 9, 2012 was not made within the scope of the matters described in the specification, claims, or drawings originally attached to the application, and therefore, the present inventions 1 to 16 were made to a patent application with an amendment that does not meet the requirements stipulated in Article 17-2, paragraph 3 of the Patent Act, and therefore fall under Article 123, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Patent Act and should be invalidated."

Article 17-2, paragraph 3 of the Patent Act prescribes the so-called "prohibition of the addition of new matter," and states that "When making an amendment to the specification, claims, or drawings pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 1, it must be made within the scope of the matters described in the specification, claims, or drawings (omitted) originally attached to the application, except in cases where an amendment is made by submitting a written correction of a mistranslation."

In addition, (Reason for invalidation 7) is, "Patent inventions 1 to 16 were made in response to a patent application that does not meet the requirements set forth in Article 36, Paragraph 6, Items 1 and 2 of the Patent Act, and therefore fall under Article 123, Paragraph 1, Item 4 of the Patent Act and should be invalidated." Article 36, Paragraph 6, Items 1 and 2 of the Patent Act are violations of the "support requirement" and the "clarity requirement," respectively.

In addition, (Reason for invalidation 8) is, "Patent inventions 1 to 16 were made in response to a patent application that does not meet the requirements set forth in Article 36, Paragraph 4, Item 1 of the Patent Act, and therefore fall under Article 123, Paragraph 1, Item 4 of the Patent Act and should be invalidated." Article 36, Paragraph 4, Item 1 of the Patent Act is a violation of the "enablement requirement."

It also states that "There are reasons for invalidation reasons 1 and 2, and therefore the patent for the invention related to claims 1 to 16 of the patents in question should be invalidated pursuant to the provisions of Article 123, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Patent Act."

Here, (invalidation reason 1) is "the same as the invention described in (Exhibit A-1)." (Exhibit A-1) is "International Publication No. 2008/081004."

And (invalidation reason 2) is "the same as the invention described in (Exhibit A-2)." (Exhibit A-2) is "International Publication No. 2008/136616." And the patent owner, Wireless Future Technologies Inc., appealed to the Intellectual Property High Court against the decision of the Japan Patent Office examiner to invalidate the patent, but the appeal was dismissed.

The Intellectual Property High Court's decision was almost identical to the Japan Patent Office's decision, stating that "the plaintiff's claim is groundless and is therefore dismissed."

This is about the examination stage at the Japan Patent Office.

The examiner (Yoshiharu Ishihara) made a "patent decision" without issuing a "notice of refusal."

This also proves that the Japan Patent Office examiners have poor research and judgment skills. It is not acceptable to grant a patent based on the examiner's careless judgment at the Japan Patent Office examination stage.

Therefore, I believe that the Japan Patent Office should not have granted a patent to Wireless Future Technologies Inc.'s application.

Here, I have listed the "FI" and "F-term" from the "application information" of this patent publication (JP Patent Publication No. 2012-239237) 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".

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HbNt9hLUBFNm0Lw37czHAj_-JhYjRMAC/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103290795915107156428&rtpof=true&sd=true

（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