The plaintiff's claim was dismissed (the plaintiff's rights are invalid). This is the 328th case in which the Intellectual Property High Court has dismissed the plaintiff's claim and found the rights invalid.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed (the plaintiff's rights are invalid).
 
This is the 328th case in which the Intellectual Property High Court has dismissed the plaintiff's claim and found the rights invalid.
 

 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l600IYl5mlnLacP1u_LkhOZE41KMHtuK/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103290795915107156428&rtpof=true&sd=true
 
Novartis AG, the patent holder, was defeated by Mitsuru Ikari (Ikari International Patent and Trademark Office) in Objection 2016-700138, which was ruled by the Japan Patent Office to "revoke the patent relating to claims 1 to 39 of Patent No. 5764329."
 
The JPO examiner's reasoning was that "the patent owner was notified of the reasons for cancellation on May 13, 2016, and given an opportunity to submit a written opinion within a specified period, but there was no response from the patent owner."
 
The reasons for cancellation are "① Inventions 1 to 39 are inventions described in Exhibit 4, ② Inventions 1 to 39 could easily be invented by a person skilled in the art based on the inventions described in Exhibits 1 to 7, ③ The patent does not meet the enablement requirement, ④ The patent does not meet the support requirement, and ⑤ The patent does not meet the clarity requirement."
 
Among these, "Exhibit 4" is (JP Patent Publication No. 2004-537289). The JPO examiner (▲Taka▼Oka Hiromi) did not find this document "Exhibit 4" (JP Patent Publication No. 2004-537289).
 
Here again, the JPO examiner's weak research ability is proven.
 
The patent owner, Novartis AG, appealed the JPO's decision to invalidate the patent to the Intellectual Property High Court, but the appeal was dismissed as described above.
 
The content of the Intellectual Property High Court's decision largely followed the JPO's ruling, which "dismissed the plaintiff's claim."
 
It is not permissible to grant a patent based on a sloppy search by an examiner at the JPO's examination stage.
 
Therefore, I believe that the JPO should not have granted a patent to Novartis AG's application in the first place.
 
I have listed the "FI" and "F-term" from the "Application Information" of this patent publication (JP Patent Publication No. 2011-503025) from the second sheet onwards in this Excel document.
 

（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