Shunpei Yamazaki

Shunpei Yamazaki (山崎 舜平, Yamazaki Shumpei, born 1942) is a Japanese inventor in the field of computer science and solid-state physics. He is a prolific inventor listed on 4,063 U.S. utility patents,^[1] as of July 7, 2015. In 2005 he was named as most prolific inventor in history by USA Today.^[2] Yamazaki was subsequently passed by Kia Silverbrook on February 26, 2008.^[3][4]

Semiconductor Energy Laboratory

Shunpei Yamazaki is the president and majority shareholder of research company Semiconductor Energy Laboratory (SEL) in Tokyo. Most of the patents he holds are in relation to computer display technology and held by SEL, with Yamazaki named either individually or jointly as inventor. Since 1996, SEL has appeared in the Intellectual Property Owners Association annual listings of the top global companies ranked by US patents:

Recently, SEL developed a display technology using crystallized indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO) as the transparent semiconductor material in the TFT array in conjunction with Sharp Corporation. SEL has an increasing patent portfolio relating to IGZO. SEL was awarded the Gold Award for the Display of the Year with Sharp at the Society for Information Display in 2013.^[21]

SEL vs Samsung

In 1996, SEL was involved in a patent case against Samsung. District court has found that SEL patent 5,543,636 is not enforceable because of inequitable conduct on the part of SEL (in particular, it was found that SEL had intentionally withheld one of the references, and had intentionally misled the examiner, with deceitful intent). In 2000, decision of district court has been affirmed by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 1374, 54 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2000).^[22]

Aftermath

This case has had important implications on US patent processes. In particular, the court has held that "withheld reference may be highly material when it discloses a more complete combination of relevant features, even if those features are before the patent examiner in other references." Based in part on this case, the Patent Office has suggested that patent applicants "evaluate the materiality of prior art or other information from the viewpoint of whether it is the closest prior art or other information" ^[23] and "that an attorney or agent make sure that foreign clients, including foreign applicants, attorneys, and agents understand the requirements of the duty of disclosure, and that the U.S. attorney or agent review any information disclosure statements or citations to ensure that compliance with 37 CFR 1.56 is present".^[23]

References