Arblast USA
Patent rights email
The business transfer agreement between Alblast and Alblast USA was not signed at the discretion of all Kitagawa, but after a formal general meeting of shareholders and a board of directors, there were also meetings with major shareholders and directors. It was decided again and again.
Similarly, as a matter of course, before the contract, the contract is convinced after sufficient hearing and confirmation, research and investigation regarding the rights of the inventor.
for example,
1. Scope of necessity of consent of the inventor.
2. The inventor's right to the judgment of Alblast.
Was one of them.
The following email is the email sent to me from all of Kitagawa on December 01, 2010.
It is not an email between me and all of Kitagawa's individuals, but it is also sent by CC email to the major shareholders and directors of Alblast, but this time, the email addresses of the shareholders are hidden. I did.
The contents are written as follows.
Points of the above sentence
Clearly in this sentence, as on the right
[ Alblast's patent applicant is Alblast, and will not lose its position unless the company is reorganized or goes bankrupt. ]
There is a description that.
At the same time, the written consent of the inventor, Shigeru Kinoshita, is required for the license or transfer of this article by the memorandum of understanding between Alblast and Shigeru Kinoshita. ], The following content is clearly stated regarding the intention of creating this article.
[ For example, when a company developing a competing product acquires this patent for the purpose of preventing the development of competing products, etc., in order to prevent the transfer when the patent is acquired for a purpose other than commercialization. It is a text added to, and it is a text that aims to illegally prevent the act when Alblast is commercializing it by itself or in cooperation with a third party. There is none. ]
[Therefore, among the Company is in the intention of commercialization on the basis of the patent that position will be ensured. ]
In other words, to put it simply, [License or transfer to a third party requires the written consent of the inventor, Shigeru Kinoshita. ] Is [ a provision to prevent a company that develops competing products from acquiring this patent for the purpose of preventing the development of competing products ], and Alblast Co., Ltd. [ self or , It is not a provision aimed at illegally hindering the act of commercializing the product in cooperation with a third party. ] , Is clearly written.
To put it more simply,
[The text of this memorandum is a text included to protect the product from competitors. When Alblast is collaborating with Alblast USA to commercialize a patent, it is not a provision that can be used for the purpose of illegally obstructing (obstructing) the act. Therefore, in the case like this time, consent from Shigeru Kinoshita is not required. ]
It will be written.
What's more, this content is not limited to emails, but Kitagawa Zen has said it many times over the phone, so there is also a recording tape.
However, as Mr. Shigeru Kinoshita's agent, Mr. Shinozaki, said, Shigeru Kinoshita and the Foundation took this article in the wrong direction, and in the words of all Kitagawa, [to obtain a patent illegally, I was waiting for the bankruptcy of Alblast. 】It means that.
All email contents of Kitagawa
Ryan
About 201 patent
The applicants for the above patents, pending patents, and their divisional patents are Alblast, and will not lose their status unless the company is reorganized or goes bankrupt. However, when licensing or assigning to a third party, the written consent of the inventor, Shigeru Kinoshita, is required, but the intention of creating this article is, for example, that a company developing a competing product competes for this patent. It is a clause added to prevent the transfer when it is acquired for a purpose other than commercialization, such as when acquiring it for the purpose of preventing product development, and Alblast himself or a third party It is not a provision aimed at illegally hindering the act of commercializing the product in cooperation with. Therefore, as long as the Company intends to commercialize it based on the patent, its position will be secured.
All Kitagawa