翻訳コラム

最近、いきなりステーキの特許が知財高裁で発明であると認定されました。日本弁理士会が作成した
「どうすれば特許を取れるの?」
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKOrRaSyFs
は、タレントの鈴木愛梨さんが弁理士に相談に訪れ、ある玩具の特許が取れるかを尋ねるというストーリーです。
このビデオは社員研修、教育現場、クライアントとの面談など様々な場面でお使いください、ということで弁理士会から送信されてきました。
学校教育の現場でも著作権の教育が始まっています。ブログやFacebook、Twitterなどを通して誰でもが容易に執筆者になれる今日、著作権の知識は大人に限らず中高生、子供たちにも必要です。
知財教育用ビデオは著作権フリーのものが多く、これも知的財産を広めたいという思いからでしょう。知財を啓蒙するための映像を著作権により自由に上映できないのであれば、ビデオを作成した主体、啓蒙者を保護し過ぎることになってしまリ、著作権は自分自身の啓蒙を自分で妨げることになってしまいます。
知財教育用ビデオこそ自由に利用できるようにすべきです。
もうひとつご紹介したい知財教育ビデオがあります。
「もうけの花道知財戦略のススメ」(経済産業省中国経済産業局中国地域知的財産戦略本部)
http://www.chugoku.meti.go.jp/ip/index.html

the intellectual property high court found that the patent for the invention titled “a system for providing steaks” under the shop name “ikinari steak” (no. 5946491 owned by pepper food service co., ltd.) qualifies as an invention. you might recall that this had been already patented under a patent number.
that’s right. this patent was issued in june 2016. however, a third party (an individual person) filed an opposition and the jpo acknowledged this opposition by judging that a system for cutting and providing meat in the desired quantity to customers “merely specifies a social mechanism (a social system)” that is “intended for economic activities” and does not qualify as an invention.
the patent right holder, pepper food service co., ltd., was dissatisfied with this decision and filed a lawsuit against the intellectual property high court insisting that it be rescinded (heisei 29 (gyo-ke) no. 10232). events followed such that the intellectual property high court acquiesced, rescinding the decision and citing that this steak provision method is an invention.
the patent claims were partially corrected after the opposition was filed. this correction was a decisive factor in the court’s decision that this system is “an invention”.
the correction added the following two requirements in claim 1: “the scale generates a sticker describing the quantity of meat weighed by the scale and a table number described on the label”; and “the mark is a sticker generated by the scale describing the quantity of meat and the table number”. the court judged that this sticker associates the quantity of meat the customer ordered with the customer’s table number in order to solve the problem that a certain customer’s meat should be distinguished from other customers’ meat—which is a technical idea. this means that a scale not only weighing meat but also associating the quantity of the meat with the customer’s table number is a technical idea.
in this decision, the court did not determine if this scale or sticker is novel or has an inventive step but decided that this system is an invention (a technical idea utilizing a natural rule). even if, per se, a sticker had already been present, using it for a certain purpose is a technical idea. my next blog will be a local report from the ata (american translators association) annual conference “ata59” in new orleans. i hope you enjoy it!
http://www.atanet.org/conf/2018/ patent no. 5,946,491 fig. 3
downloaded from j-platpat(jpo, national center for industrial property information and training (inpit))
https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/web/all/top/btmtoppagethe intellectual property high court found that the patent for the invention titled “a system for providing steaks” under the shop name “ikinari steak” (no. 5946491 owned by pepper food service co., ltd.) qualifies as an invention. you might recall that this had been already patented under a patent number.
that’s right. this patent was issued in june 2016. however, a third party (an individual person) filed an opposition and the jpo acknowledged this opposition by judging that a system for cutting and providing meat in the desired quantity to customers “merely specifies a social mechanism (a social system)” that is “intended for economic activities” and does not qualify as an invention.
the patent right holder, pepper food service co., ltd., was dissatisfied with this decision and filed a lawsuit against the intellectual property high court insisting that it be rescinded (heisei 29 (gyo-ke) no. 10232). events followed such that the intellectual property high court acquiesced, rescinding the decision and citing that this steak provision method is an invention.
the patent claims were partially corrected after the opposition was filed. this correction was a decisive factor in the court’s decision that this system is “an invention”.
the correction added the following two requirements in claim 1: “the scale generates a sticker describing the quantity of meat weighed by the scale and a table number described on the label”; and “the mark is a sticker generated by the scale describing the quantity of meat and the table number”. the court judged that this sticker associates the quantity of meat the customer ordered with the customer’s table number in order to solve the problem that a certain customer’s meat should be distinguished from other customers’ meat—which is a technical idea. this means that a scale not only weighing meat but also associating the quantity of the meat with the customer’s table number is a technical idea.
in this decision, the court did not determine if this scale or sticker is novel or has an inventive step but decided that this system is an invention (a technical idea utilizing a natural rule). even if, per se, a sticker had already been present, using it for a certain purpose is a technical idea. my next blog will be a local report from the ata (american translators association) annual conference “ata59” in new orleans. i hope you enjoy it!
http://www.atanet.org/conf/2018/ patent no. 5,946,491 fig. 3
downloaded from j-platpat(jpo, national center for industrial property information and training (inpit))
https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/web/all/top/btmtoppage