What will the patent office do! "Wake up Examiner !! It's really about sloppy and poor patent granting through "examination" (search).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eOeL1ln7-VaVlDyTzn2IhWmhj6SWv8rV/view?usp=drive_link
It has been declared "invalid" by the Intellectual Property High Court.
This is the revised version of the 75th (revised version) of "Patent Infringement Injunction Case Seen from Court Precedents" uploaded on November 9, 2022 (Wednesday).
It is unclear whether Kobe Steel, the plaintiff, the patentee, has verified the "validity" of its patent No. 3,766,725 (oil-cooled screw compressor).
"Validity" means that even if a third party such as an interested party raises an "invalidation trial" by conducting, for example, an "invalid material investigation" for the company's patent, the company's patent is It is to be convinced that it is rock solid.
Despite this, Kobe Steel Co., Ltd. believed that the patent granted by the Patent Office was valid, and sued the defendant, Mayekawa Seisakusho Co., Ltd., for patent infringement.
The plaintiff won the case in the Osaka District Court.
However, the Intellectual Property High Court ruled that ``it was recognized that the patent pertaining to the invention in question should be invalidated in a trial for patent invalidation, and the plaintiff of the first instance, who is the patentee, filed a claim against the defendant of the first instance. The patent right cannot be enforced.” In the end, the appellant lost the case.
As a basis for this, "Otsu No. 114 Invention" (Japanese Patent Publication No. 51-36884) is cited as a prior art document.
This document could not be found at the examination stage of the Patent Office.
An IPCC searcher (Norihide Funada) presented four "Y documents" that do not include the above "Otsu 114 invention" (Japanese Patent Publication No. 51-36884) to the examiner.
The examiner shows the applicant the four documents presented by the searcher as they are.
After that, the applicant issued a "Written Amendment", and in the end, the examiner made a "decision of registration".
After registration, two invalidation trials were filed, but both were dismissed and the rights continued.
In addition, it is the history after registration. It is also interesting to see the trial at the Patent Office between the plaintiff filing a lawsuit with the Osaka District Court, winning a portion of the case, and then losing the case at the Intellectual Property High Court.
In the end, it was decided that it should be invalidated by the invalidation trial.
We believe that the root cause of this case is that the Patent Office was unable to find "Otsu No. 114 Invention" (Japanese Patent Publication No. 51-36884) presented at the Intellectual Property High Court.
As long as the IPCC searcher finds the document "Otsu 114" (Japanese Examined Patent Publication No. 51-36884), I think.
By the way, the "application information" of "Otsu 114" (Japanese Patent Publication No. 51-36884) is displayed in a green frame on the right side of the gazette.
Comparing the "application information" of this patent publication (JP-A-10-122168), the only thing in common is the "theme code" (3H005).
And "FI" and "F-term" have nothing in common.
This suggests that the [search logic expression] based only on "classification" is a mistake.
You have to get the population by the search expression using the "search term".
You should always do a hybrid search of "technical subjects" in the same category.
I think that patent office examiners need to relearn correct "prior art searches" rather than so-called "searches."
A patent will not be granted based on an inadequate "search" by a patent office examiner.
Therefore, I believe that the JPO should not have granted a patent to the application filed by Kobe Steel, Ltd.
As the “administration” (the Patent Office), we should humbly reflect on the fact that the “judicial” (the court) pointed out the error, and should try to correct the error.
In particular, the creation of the "search logic formula" that the examiner instructs the searchers of the registered search organization to create, or the "search logic formula" that is considered to be created by themselves should be fundamentally reformed. is.
Here, the "FI classification table" and "F-term list" of the "application information" of the patent publication (JP-A-10-122168) are listed from the second sheet onwards of this Excel document.
（ Google 翻译 ）
专利局怎么办！ “唤醒审查员！！这真的是关于通过“审查”（搜索）授予专利的马虎和糟糕。
它已被知识产权高等法院宣布“无效”。
这是2022年11月9日（星期三）上传的《从判例看专利侵权禁令案》第75期（修订版）的修订版。
目前尚不清楚作为专利权人的原告神户制钢所是否验证了其专利第3766725号（油冷螺杆压缩机）的“有效性”。
“有效性”是指即使利害关系人等第三方通过对公司专利进行“无效材料调查”等方式提出“无效审理”，公司的专利也被认为是有效的 坚如磐石。
尽管如此，神户制钢所仍认为专利局授予的专利有效，以侵犯专利权为由起诉被告前川制作所。
原告在大阪地方法院胜诉。
但是，知识产权高等法院裁定“在专利无效宣告审理中认定涉案发明专利应当宣告无效，作为专利权人的一审原告提起诉讼 一审被告人。 专利权无法执行。” 最终，上诉人败诉。
作为其基础，“Otsu No.114 Invention”（日本专利公开No.51-36884）作为现有技术文献被引用。
该文件在专利局审查阶段无法查到。
IPCC检索员（Norihide Funada）向审查员出示了4份不包含上述“大津114发明”（日本专利公开第51-36884号）的“Y文件”。
审查员原样向申请人出示检索员出示的四份文件。
之后，申请人出具“修改意见书”，审查员最终作出“注册决定”。
注册后，两次提起无效宣告审理，均被驳回，权利继续。
另外，是登录之后的履历。 原告向大阪地方法院提起诉讼，部分胜诉，然后在知识产权高等法院败诉，专利局的审判也很有趣。
最终，经无效宣告审理，决定宣告无效。
我们认为，本案的根本原因是特许厅无法找到在知识产权高等法院出示的“大津第 114 号发明”（日本专利公开第 51-36884 号）。
只要 IPCC 搜索器找到文件“Otsu 114”（日本已审专利公开号 51-36884），我想。
顺便说一下，“Otsu 114”（日本专利公开号 51-36884）的“申请信息”显示在公报右侧的绿色框中。
比较该专利公开（JP-A-10-122168）的“申请信息”，唯一相同的是“主题代码”（3H005）。
而“FI”和“F-term”没有任何共同点。
这表明仅基于“分类”的[搜索逻辑表达式]是错误的。
您必须使用“搜索词”通过搜索表达式获取人口。
您应该始终在同一类别中对“技术主题”进行混合搜索。
我认为专利局审查员需要重新学习正确的“现有技术检索”而不是所谓的“检索”。
专利局审查员不会根据不充分的“搜索”授予专利。
因此，我认为日本特许厅不应该对神户制钢所的申请授予专利权。
作为“行政”（专利局），对于“司法”（法院）指出的错误，我们应该虚心反思，并努力纠正错误。
特别是对审查员指导注册检索机构的检索人创建的“检索逻辑公式”的创建，或者认为是自己创建的“检索逻辑公式”，应当进行根本改革。 是。
这里，专利公开(JP-A-10-122168)的“申请信息”的“FI分类表”和“F项列表”从该Excel文档的第二页开始列出。
この記事が気に入ったらサポートをしてみませんか？