Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. (President: Mr. Takashi Matsuura;) et al. (“Toyoda Gosei”) previously brought a suit before the Tokyo High Court demanding the annulment of the JPO’s “Trial Decision for Invalidation of Patent” decided on August 8, 2000 with respect to the Heisei-9 Trial No. 19470 concerning the following patent which is one of the patents relating to a light-emitting gallium nitride-based compound semiconductor blue LED Toyoda Gosei owns (Plaintiff: Toyoda Gosei; Defendant: Nichia Corporation). 
Regarding this case, the 6th Civil Division of the Tokyo High Court (Judge Yamashita as Presiding Judge) rendered today (July 18, 2002) the judgment to the effect that the JPO’s “Trial Decision for Invalidation of Patent” is annulled, and thus, our assertion is justified. 
This patent is the subject patent of the first Patent Infringement Case [Tokyo District Court Heisei-9 (wa) No. 16589] that Toyoda Gosei previously brought before the Tokyo District Court against Nichia Corporation. As a result of the judgment rendered this time annulling the JPO’s Trial Decision, Toyoda Gosei will immediately apply for the reopening of the hearing of said Patent Infringement Case, which is currently discontinued. 
Please note that since last year, Toyoda Gosei has won seven out of eight cases in Toyoda Gosei’s favor with such a high probability, as shown in the following table with respect to the lawsuits such as action demanding the annulment of Trial Decision etc. at the Tokyo High Court concerning a gallium nitride-based blue LED in dispute between Toyoda Gosei and Nichia Corporation. 
In addition, Toyoda Gosei won both the two (2) Patent Infringement Cases in dispute between Toyoda Gosei and Nichia Corporation, at the Tokyo District Court on February 28, 2002. 

NOTE
1. Case No.
	Heisei-12 (Gyo-ke) No. 361
2. Subject Patent
	Patent No. 2623466
3. Grounds for taking the action demanding annulment of JPO's decision
	[Content of JPO's decision on opposition]:
	(1) The amendment was filed to change the gist of the subject invention. (2) The subject invention could easily be thought of by persons skilled in the art based on the publications. (3) The detailed description of the subject invention does not state the purpose, constitution or effect of the subject invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be carried out by a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the invention.
	[Assertion by Toyoda Gosei]
	Toyoda Gosei submitted a written demand for correction of this patent in the course of the trial examination on the Opposition case against this patent (Heisei-9 Opposition No. 75898). The JPO approved the correction and made decision on the Opposition to the effect that this patent relating to Claim 1 is maintained, and thus, the decision became definite. Therefore, since no finding was made on the requisite added in corrected invention 1 in the trial decision and the JPO is considered to have made an error in recognizing the gist of the invention, the trial decision should be annulled.
4. Judgment of Tokyo High Court
	Concerning the Claim that specifies the invention relating to the subject patent, the decision on the Opposition, in which making claim correction was approved, became definite, and thus, the trial decision is considered, as a result, to have made an error in recognizing the description of the Claim as a basis of finding the gist of claimed invention that should be the subject of decision. Therefore, it is inevitable that the trial decision be annulled.