The decision was annulled (the rights of the plaintiff, Nippon Kyodo Kikaku, were invalid). This is the 327th case to be declared "invalid" by the Intellectual Property High Court.
The decision was annulled (the rights of the plaintiff, Nippon Kyodo Kikaku, were invalid).
This is the 327th case to be declared "invalid" by the Intellectual Property High Court.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_b2bgn7-8CsBN13yGLK4fRo-ngGkFd9L/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103290795915107156428&rtpof=true&sd=true
After the patent was confirmed by the Japan Patent Office, an invalidation trial was filed by an interested party and the patent holder won, but the Intellectual Property High Court later ruled the rights "invalid."
In other words, the patent holder, Japan Cooperative Planning Co., Ltd., faced an invalidation trial (Invalidation 2013-800038 (1)) filed by Shibuya Kogyo Co., Ltd., which is believed to be an interested party, but the Japan Patent Office's Trial and Appeal Division ruled that the "trial request was invalid" and the patent rights were upheld.
On the other hand, Shibuya Kogyo Co., Ltd., which lost the case, appealed to the Intellectual Property High Court (Case No. 10071 of 2014 (Gyo-Ke)).
In response to this lawsuit, the Intellectual Property High Court dismissed the lawsuit by Japan Cooperative Planning Co., Ltd., stating that "the plaintiff's claim is dismissed." (Decision rendered on December 24, 2014) The JPO's Trial Department then stated, "
In relation to the decision on the invalidation trial of Patent No. 4920841 dated February 21, 2014, the Intellectual Property High Court has made a decision to revoke the decision (No. 2014 (Ke) No. 10071, Dec. 24, 2014), and after further review, we will make the following decision. [Conclusion] "
The patent for the invention related to claims 1 to 8 of Patent No. 4920841 is invalid." (June 12, 2017) The right holder, Nippon Kyodo Kikaku Co., Ltd., was dissatisfied with this decision and filed a lawsuit with the Intellectual Property High Court in this case (No. 2017 (Gyo Ke) No. 10150), but as stated above, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the invalidity of the right is confirmed.
The issue at issue in the Intellectual Property High Court is both "Revocation Ground 1" and "Revocation Ground 2" (errors in the determination of the amendment in question).
Here, I would like to consider the "prior art documents" in this case.
At the examination stage of the Japan Patent Office, first, the searcher (KC0W) of the registered search organization (General Incorporated Foundation Industrial Property Cooperation Center) found "Patent Document 1" (Japanese Utility Model Application Publication No. 6-023936) presented by Shibuya Kogyo Co., Ltd. in the invalidation trial.
However, this was presented to the supervisor (L109) as "Y document". On the other hand, the examiner who examined the patent application in question (Yoshiyasu Kusakabe) presented the above "Patent Document 1" (Japanese Utility Model Application Publication No. 6-023936) presented by the searcher (KC0W) as well as other patent documents as prior art documents in the "Notice of Reasons for Rejection" to the applicant.
The applicant submitted a "Written Amendment" and the examiner (Kusakabe Yoshiyasu) granted a "Patent Allowance."
It is noteworthy that the patent examiner did not find "A3" (JP Patent Publication No. 11-286328) and "A4" (US Patent No. 3,231,068) that were presented by Shibuya Kogyo Co., Ltd. in the invalidation trial.
The classifications (FI and F-terms) in the "Application Information" of "A1" (JP Utility Model Publication No. 6-023936) and "A3" (JP Patent Publication No. 11-286328) are listed to the right of the publications.
The classifications in pink are the same as those of the subject patent (JP Patent Publication No. 2003-053275), and there are many of them in "A3" (JP Patent Publication No. 11-286328).
This makes it strange that the examiners at the Patent Office were unable to find this patent document "Ko 3" (JP Patent Publication No. 2009-286328).
This again proves that the Patent Office's search capabilities are weak.
It is not acceptable to grant a patent based on a sloppy search by an examiner at the Patent Office's examination stage.
Therefore, I believe that the Patent Office should not have granted a patent to Japan Kyodo Kikaku Co., Ltd. in the first place.
I have listed the "FI" and "F-term" from the "Application Information" of this patent publication (JP Patent Publication No. 2003-053275) from the second sheet onwards in this Excel document.
（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