What will the patent office do! "Wake up Examiner !! " It is about granting a patent through poor and incomplete "examination" (search).
It has been declared "invalid" by the Intellectual Property High Court.
This is the revised version of the 63rd case (revised version) of "Patent Infringement Injunction Case Seen from Judicial Precedents" uploaded on Saturday, February 4, 2023.
USHIO INC., the plaintiff who is the patentee, claims that its patent No. 5,344,105 (Polarized light irradiation device for photo-alignment and polarized light irradiation method for photo-alignment) is "effectiveness ” is verified.
"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, we believed that the patent granted by the Patent Office was valid, and sued the defendant, V-Technology Co., Ltd., for patent infringement.
First, the Tokyo District Court ruled, "It is recognized that the patents for Inventions 1 to 4 should be invalidated by the patent invalidation trial. I can't do it."
The Intellectual Property High Court ruled that the original trial, the Tokyo District Court, said, ``It is recognized that the patents for Inventions 1 to 4 should be invalidated by the patent invalidation trial. In contrast, the patent right cannot be enforced.", and the appellant lost the case.
The Tokyo District Court cited "Ko 26" (Japanese Unexamined Patent Publication No. 2007-114647) and "Ko No. 10" (Japanese Unexamined Patent Publication No. 2009-295950) as prior art documents as the basis for invalidating the patent.
The examiner suddenly made a "decision of registration" without issuing a "notice of reasons for refusal", and the applicant became the patentee.
However, the patentee lost the case in the Intellectual Property High Court as described above.
The root cause of this case is that the examiner failed to recognize that Ko No. 26 (Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2007-114647), which was found with much effort, is prior art.
Patent Office examiners are not allowed to grant patents based on their poor search skills and naivety.
Therefore, I believe that the Patent Office should not have granted a patent to the application filed by Ushio Inc.
The classifications (“FI” and “F-term”) in these two “application information” are attached to the right column of each publication.
In comparing these with the assigned classification of the patent (JP 2014-174352), common (overlapping) items are highlighted in pink. There are many.
This makes me wonder why the Patent Office examiners were unable to locate these two patent documents at the same time.
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, we should fundamentally reform the creation of "search logic formulas" that are thought to be created by examiners under the guidance of searchers of registered search organizations, or created by themselves.
Here, "FI" and "F term" in the "application information" of this patent publication are listed from the second sheet onwards of this Excel document.
（ Google 翻译 ）
专利局怎么办！ “Wake up Examiner !!”是关于通过糟糕和不完整的“审查”（搜索）授予专利。
它已被知识产权高等法院宣布“无效”。
这是2023年2月4日星期六上传的《从判例看专利侵权禁令案》第63案（修订版）的修订版。
作为专利权人的原告USHIO INC.声称其第5,344,105号专利（用于光取向的偏光照射装置和用于光取向的偏光照射方法）“有效”得到验证。
“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，我们仍认为专利局授予的专利有效，并以侵犯专利权为由起诉被告V-Technology Co., Ltd.。
首先，东京地方法院裁定，“发明1至4的专利应当通过专利无效审判被宣告无效。我不能这样做”。
知识产权高等法院裁定原审东京地方法院表示，“承认发明1至4的专利应通过专利无效审理无效。 反之，则专利权无法行使。”，上诉人败诉。
东京地方法院引用“Ko 26”（日本未审查专利公开第 2007-114647 号）和“Ko No.10”（日本未审查专利公开第 2009-295950 号）作为现有技术文件作为无效专利的依据。
审查员在未发出“驳回理由通知书”的情况下，突然作出“注册决定”，申请人成为专利权人。
然而，如上所述，专利权人在知识产权高等法院败诉。
本案的根本原因在于，审查员未能将费了九牛二虎之力才查到的日本特愿26号（日本特开2007-114647号公报）认定为现有技术。
不允许专利局审查员基于他们糟糕的检索技巧和天真来授予专利。
因此，我认为专利局不应该对Ushio Inc.的申请授予专利权。
这两个“申请信息”中的分类（“FI”和“F-term”）附在每个出版物的右栏中。
在将这些与专利的指定分类（JP 2014-174352）进行比较时，常见（重叠）项目以粉红色突出显示。 有许多。
这让我很奇怪为什么专利局的审查员不能同时找到这两份专利文件。
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。
尤其要从根本上改革那些被认为是审查员在注册检索组织的检索员指导下创建或自己创建的“检索逻辑公式”的创建。
此处，该专利公开的“申请信息”中的“FI”和“F项”是从该Excel文档的第二页开始列出的。