KHE International Patent Office
Case Study (Overview)


Intellectual properties contribute business and enterprise.  Many companies create inventions and submit the applications in their process of technology development of new products.  However, it is quite important to prepare appropriate processes and take technical enhancement in the applications before intellectual property (IP) grants.  We present some examples of business successes and failures to obtain and utilization of the IP rights as follows.

1. Cases of IP employment for successive operation

For executing productive operation and achieving high performance in the businesses, it is quite important to obtain rights of IPs such as patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, etc. to the businesses.
 
Concrete examples of companies that employ IPs to strategic business operation are shown in the following URL.  Each of these companies utilizes IPs as essential management and operating resources and realizes business success.

>>Case study of employing IPs to business operation 2012 (only Japanease)

>>Case study of employing industrial properties to business operation Vol. 3 (only Japanease)

The following Case 1 shows an example of a big company who planned to make a strategic business of plastic materials employing IPs.

Case 1. Business success by using peripheral patents for business collaboration with third parties

2. Importance of appropriate management in application process and office actions before patent grant

In order to succeed businesses by using patented technologies, it is quite necessary to continuingly monitor the technical contents and the status of office actions.  The followings are the examples that applicants failed to obtain intended patent protection due to omission  of careful monitoring of the applications.

Case 2. Failure due to neglecting to submit variation applications of related inventions

Case 3. Failure due to lack of awareness of the importance of peripheral patents

Case 4. Failure due to poor translation of PCT specifications without technical understanding

Case 5. Failure due to vague expression in Japanese translation

Case 6. Failure due to using functional claims without careful consideration