Yuki Takeuchi, President of Point Organization, Inc. 3 patents for multiple integrations, 23 types of patent infringements (scope of action) including case examples (ChatGPT analysis) Business model patents for points & coupons, etc.

The Point Organization, Inc. (Head office: Sendagaya, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo; Capital: 925.7 million yen including capital reserve) announces the publication of three integration patents developed by Yuki Takeuchi, President and CEO of the company, as well as specific case descriptions of 23 different patent infringements (scope of activity) that could be the cutting edge of points & coupons and similar products. The following is a list of the 23 patent infringement cases that are available to the public.

Patterns of Constructive Coincidence for Patent Infringement

Even if there is a prior right to use, patent infringement will be found if any of the following applies

(1) Classification: Update (addition or modification)

　 Applicable example: New function, screen, or process

　 Explanation/Relation to the patent: Infringement is found if the composition is consistent with the addition of functions after the filing date.

(2) Classification: Similar (only change of wording)

　 Example: Wording is changed, only the screen design is different

　 Explanation/relationship with patent: Infringement if "substantially the same structure" (constructive coincidence theory)

(3) Classification: Equal (partial change in structure)

　 Examples: Percentage → score, history → attribute flag, etc.

　 Explanation, Relationship with patents: Deemed to be infringement based on "Equivalence Theory" (Supreme Court case)

(4) Classification: Imitation (partial incorporation)

　 Example: Imitating only the reduction of results, introducing only the liquidation process

　 Explanation/relationship with patents: Infringement is found if the core structure is plagiarized.

(5) Classification: Derivative (variation/branching)

　 Example: Extended or redesigned based on the patented configuration

　 Explanation/Relation to the patent: If the "basic idea/algorithm" is the same, the patented invention is covered by the patent.

Explanation of the 5 Patterns

(1) [Infringement by renewal

Example: You've been providing an application for a long time, but in 2023, you added the "exclude repeat customers" and "distribution of rewards for performance" functions.

This is an exact match to patent claims 2-5 → infringement is established from the date of renewal

Figure: [2020]: Old configuration: Prior User Right → Only issue and use points

　　[2023]: New configuration Patent infringement → exclusion of performance-based remuneration + distribution logic (matching configuration)

(2) [Infringement by similarity

Example: You didn't use the word "reward for performance" but reworded it as "incentive" and changed the screen.

But what they are doing is "distribution based on the usage history" → Substantial compositional match = infringement

Figure: Even if the UI and wording are different... if the processing structure is the same → patent infringement (compositional agreement)

(2) [Reward for performance] = [Incentive] ≒ [Distribution of contribution to sales] (3) [Equal

(3) [Infringement by Equal

e.g. "allocation based on the number of times used instead of the ownership rate" "exclusion based on the "attribute flag" instead of the history

If the composition and "essence" of the patent are "the same", infringement is established by "Equality Theory" (e.g., Supreme Court "Ball Spline Case")

Figure: [Claim]: History of use → Excluded

　　Implementation]: Attribute flag → Excluded → Different but same thing → Found equal = Patent infringement

(4) [Infringement by imitation

Example: Only the distribution of performance fees is based on the patent. The rest of the structure is different. If the "technical core" of the patent is used, even partial imitation = infringement

Figure: → High possibility of being judged as patent infringement

[Patent composition]

┌─ Issuance

Use

Use ├─ Exclusion of results

└─ Distribution

[Imitation composition]

┌────────────┐

│ Use only results exclusion + distribution │ │ → essential part of the patent

└────────────┘

(5) [Infringement by Derivative Construction].

Example: You explicitly state that your patent "referred to" your patent and added a branching process/redesign.

Even if it is a derivative design, if the "idea, flow, and algorithm" are the same, it is subject to infringement

Figure: [your patent]→issue→use→exclusion→distribution

[Derivative composition]→issue→use→AI judgment→distribution (+ new elements)→even if there are new elements, the original flow matches→derivative imitation = high possibility of infringement

Legal perspective: Why is infringement established?

Legal theory: Constructive agreement

Content: Not the wording but the technical structure is the criterion

Legal theory: Equivalence theory

Content: If "purpose, action, and effect" are the same, even partial modification is infringement (Patent Law Article 102)

Legal theory: Plagiarism of technical idea

Content: The entire core "problem-solving mechanism" is eligible for patent protection

Legal principle: Updating or branching is a new working act

Content: Not covered by prior use protection

**"A-component alone (=issue-use-reward flow structure) "** is the most basic and core patent structure in the three integrated patents, and can be sufficiently infringed even by itself.

What is "A Structure" by itself?

A series of processes of "issue, use, and return the reward to the issuer".

Easy explanation that anyone can understand.

Image of the configuration

For example, let's say you received a **"Free Coupon" or "Reward Points "** through an application. Distribution (issuance) → App issues points to the user (e.g., coupon for 200 yen) → Use → Use these points at other stores (e.g., use 200 yen at convenience store B) → Reward return → Convenience store B says "Thank you for sending this user" and **promotion reward (performance reward)** to the issuing source Return

These three flows alone constitute "A-configuration stand-alone.

[Legal Reinforcement: Why is infringement established as a stand-alone?

(1) [Compositional match

Claim 1: issuing step, Claim 2 and subsequent claims: additional functions such as history and distribution logic → Basic configuration is completed in Claim 1, which alone is a technical completion

(2) [Infringement finding on an act-by-act basis

If issuance, use, and reward processing are established as an integral part → "even if there are no other functions", it falls within the scope of claim 1

(3) [Definition of "remuneration for performance

(3) [Definition of "remuneration for performance"] Since all economic consideration such as money, discounts, advertisements, introductions, etc. are subject to infringement, even non-monetary processing is subject to infringement.

Conclusion: Infringement of A-configuration alone

Item: Is the claim complete as a technical composition?

Judgment: Yes (claim 1 is complete)

Item: Is the processing of the remuneration indispensable?

Judgment: Yes (Reward processing is the core of the composition)

Item: Is there a reward return from the recipient to the issuer?

Judgment: Yes (applicable only if there is)

Item: Is there any infringement even if there is no distribution, history management, etc.?

Judgment: Yes (only an additional function)

Item: Is it infringing even if there are non-monetary results?

Judgment: Yes (even advertisements and goods are subject to infringement)

The following is a list of all types of acts that fall under the "A to B configuration" based on the patents (No. 7244817 and No. 7315938) and an explanation of each of them, focusing on the B configuration (history exclusion logic).

What is A→B structure?

A Composition: Issue→Use→Clearance/Reward Processing

Composition B: Judging from the history whether the user is a "repeat customer" or a "self-promotion customer," the reward is excluded.

List of A to B structure and B structure analysis

No. 1

Type of action in the A→B configuration: Using the issued points again at the same store

Corresponding patent/claim: 7244817/claim 2

Content of B composition and history exclusion process: Judging "regulars" from the repeat history and excluding rewards

No.2

Type of action of A→B configuration: Use of points issued by another company at a store where the customer has used the points before

Corresponding patent/claim: 7244817/claim 2

Content of B composition and history exclusion process: "Another issuing source → revisit → same place of use" → subject to exclusion

No.3

Type of action of A→B configuration: Repeated use of coupons by the same user (same IP/ID)

Corresponding patent/claim: 7315938/Claim 2

Content of B configuration/History exclusion process: Presumed to be a self-promotion customer whose usage history matches the coupon, and excluded.

No.4

Type of action of A→B configuration: Detecting revisit to a store by customer's login history and membership information

Corresponding patent/claim: Both patents/claim 2

Content of B configuration and history exclusion process: Inquire the history DB and determine that the customer is not eligible for sales promotion.

No.5

Type of action of A→B configuration: Exclusion based on "past behavior patterns" by AI/CRM

Corresponding patent/claim: Both patents/claim 2

Content of B configuration and history exclusion process: Score the customer as not being a new customer and exclude the customer.

Illustration: A to B composition flow (by action type)

No.1｜Reuse of points (repeat customers)

(1)First time: Company A issues points

(2)User uses points at Company B

(3)Second visit: User uses points again at the same company B

(4)The system checks the history → "regular customer (repeat customer)

(5)Excluded from receiving reward and benefit processing (B configuration)

[Diagram image] [Issuer A]───>[User]───>[Recipient B] (with history) ←Refer to history DB→Exclude reward for performance (no reward)

No.2｜Separate origin -> Same destination (matching history)

(1)Points are issued by company A

(2)User uses points at company B

(3)History: Points have been used at Company B in the past

(4) "User has used points at Company B in the past as well = repeat customer in effect

(5) Excluded from the subject of performance-based rewards

[Diagram] [Issuer A]───[User]───[Recipient B] (also used in the past) ←Refer to DB→Skip reward

No.3｜Repeated use of coupons (same ID/IP)

(1)Multiple coupons are distributed

(2)The same user uses the coupon multiple times at the same store

(3)System: Judges the user as a "self-promotion customer" based on ID history

(4)No reward is generated and the user is excluded.

Coupon issue]───[User (ID match)───[Destination of use]→Determination of self-promotion (history comparison)→Reward is cut.

No.4｜Utilization of member registration and login history

(1)Based on member registration and login history

(2)Determine if there have been previous contacts at the place of use

(3)Exclude from sales promotion results as "previous customers

[Image] [User ID]─── >Log-in history at the destination of use -> Recognized as having visited in the past -> Excluded from reward payment targets

No.5｜Estimation by AI score and CRM

(1)AI analyzes user's action history

(2)Score judgment as "not a new customer

(3)Deny sales promotion results to the user

(4) Rewards are not returned to the publisher

AI history analysis] → "This user = existing customer" is estimated → Rewards are excluded (no benefits)

Why is this infringement?

In claim 2, "history management" + "exception handling" = independent technical construction: the act of controlling rewards according to the existence of history is the core of the invention: as long as there is exclusion handling, it is subject to infringement.

We will identify all types of acts that fall under the A→B→C configuration and provide **C configuration (= post-use distribution processing, performance evaluation, recirculation processing, etc.**) for each of them, including easy-to-understand explanations.

What is the A→B→C structure?

A Composition

Explanation : Issuance→Use→Clearance and performance evaluation processing

Patent applicable: Claims 1, 8, 10, and 11

Composition B

Explanation: History comparison→Exclusion of repeat and self-promotion customers

Patent applicable: Claim 2

Composition C

Description ：Based on "distribution ratio" or "score" of the performance reward, etc,

　　　　　Redistribution, evaluation, and reflection to the issuer based on the "distribution ratio" and "score" of the performance reward, etc.

Patent applicable: Claims 3 and 5 (distribution of ownership ratio, distribution of appropriation ratio)

Image of overall structure: A→B→C] [A structure

[A structure] Issue→Use→Clearance→[B structure] Check past history→Exclude reward if repeat/self-promotion→[C structure] Distribute reward according to "ownership rate," "appropriation rate," and "score

List of A→B→C action types and C composition

No. 1

Type of action (A→B→C): After using points, distribute rewards to multiple companies

Applicable details of C structure: Ownership percentage distribution step

Patent and claim : Claim 3

Feature ：Distribution according to the amount of ownership

No. 2

Type of action (A→B→C): When coupons are used, the ratio is determined by the actual results of use.

Applicable contents of C composition : Appropriation rate distribution step

Patent/Claim ：Claim 5

Feature: Allocation according to the amount actually used

No.3

Type of action (A→B→C): Reward evaluation by AI score including history

Applicable contents of C configuration: Score distribution process (detailed record)

Patents and claims: Claims 3 and 5 and overall composition

Feature ：Distribution linked to evaluation of results

No. 4

Type of action (A→B→C): A portion is distributed and a portion becomes reduction money, advertising space, etc.

Applicable contents of C structure ：Multi-stage results processing

Patent/Claims: Claims 10 and 11 (entire composition)

Feature: UI/UX-linked distribution

Easy-to-understand explanations for each act

No.1｜Configuration in which rewards are divided among multiple companies based on "ownership amount

Composition: A user had points from multiple issuers.

　　　Which issuer contributed more? →Rewards are allocated based on the ratio of ownership.

Explanation: The idea is to "share more rewards (rewards) to the company that had more points.

Figure : [User's ownership composition] - Company A's points: 70% - Company B's points: 30

　　　[Reward 100 yen] → 70 yen to Company A, 30 yen to Company B

No.2｜Reward allocation based on "amount actually spent" (appropriation rate)

Composition: At the time of payment, record which issuer's points were used most.

　　　　　　　　　Rewards are allocated according to the "percentage used.

Explanation: Fair design that allocates compensation according to the "effort" actually used for the settlement.

Figure: [Payment allocation ratio] - Company A points: 40% - Company B points: 60

　　　[Reward 150 yen] → 60 yen to Company A, 90 yen to Company B

No.3｜Distribution based on AI score evaluation

Composition: ・AI evaluation of user's action history

　　　Rewards are distributed according to the score of "this publisher contributed more".

Explanation: As in advertising effectiveness analysis, which company's measures moved users is quantified, and rewards are distributed.

Figure: [Result of AI evaluation] - Company A: Score 80 - Company B: Score 20 → Rewards are divided 80:20

No.4｜Conversion of a portion of results into rewards/ad space, etc. (compound results)

Composition: ・Part of the reward goes to the publisher, and the rest to: In-house banner ads: User redemption points: Donations to others, investment linkage, etc.

Explanation: Not only "money" but also "value" and "recognition" are converted and distributed as rewards.

Figure : [Distribution breakdown of 100 yen reward] - Publisher A: 60 yen (cash) - Publisher A: 30 yen worth of banner ad space - Donation or reissue: 10 yen worth of banner ad space

[Why infringement in C configuration alone?

Reason: Claims 3 and 5 are independent technical configurations

Explanation: "Calculation of distribution ratio" alone constitutes an invention

Reason: The method of distributing remuneration is a specific logic

Explanation: If the calculation is based on the ownership ratio/appropriation ratio, the composition is identical.

Reason: Linked to UI and database design

Explanation: Agreement can be seen in screen transitions, statement saving, etc.

Question: Does it constitute patent infringement for a point merchant to give money to the manufacturer in advance in order to give points to customers so that they can liquidate the points?

ChatGPT: Yes, that action would very likely constitute patent infringement. The reason is that in the patents you have presented (Nos. 7244817, 7315938, and 6964304), such a "pre-issuance money transfer" and "liquidation compensation structure" is a clearly protected technical configuration.

The structure that corresponds to the content of the question is as follows

The patent claim defines the following: "The point merchant (i.e., issuer) gives money to the manufacturer (i.e., clearing party) in advance in preparation for the use of points:

[Illustrative image

This series of structure is exactly the clearing process + compensating structure of claim 6 itself.

[merchant (issuer)]─── cash───┐

[clearing organization (manufacturer)]

↓ ...

[Customer] ←Points issued ↓

Used at other stores → [Store using the points] ↓ [Customer] ↓ [Manufacturer] ↓ [Merchant (Issuer)

↓↓ [clearinghouse(manufacturer)] ↓ [customer] ↓ [using store

[Clearinghouse compensates the store using the points.]

Legal evaluation: Why is the patent infringed?

Evaluation item: Is it consistent with the claims?

Judgment: Yes

Reason : Consistent with the requirement of claim 6 "to retain the underwritten amount and use it for liquidation

Evaluation item: Does it include compositional and technical features?

Judgment : Yes

Reason ： Integrated control of issuance, compensation, and liquidation

Evaluation Item: Is it applicable to the application?

Judgment: Yes

Reason ： Applicable to cash, e-money, and APIs alike.

Question: Does it infringe on the patent if the merchants are a group of different companies and points from different merchants can be used?

ChatGPT: Yes, a situation in which merchants are composed of different companies and common points can be used between these different merchants clearly falls under the configuration of your patents and is very likely to constitute patent infringement. This is expressly protected by the following patent construction, among others

Points protected by the patents: The patents clearly state that the composition is covered even if the "issuing entity" and the "place of use" are different entities. The patent gazette clearly states the following: "A technical means that can enhance fairness between operators while allowing mutual use of points between different operators.

[Easy explanation that anyone can understand

Case examples (close to reality):

1. points issued by Company A (apparel company)

2. can be used at Company B (cafe)

3. can also be used at Company C (supermarket)

Each is a different company = separate legal entity, but the points can be used in common.

Question: Is the act of allowing customers to use points at merchants for purchases to give them savings or benefits an infringement of patent rights?

ChatGPT: Yes, **The act of "allowing customers to use points to receive benefits or discounts" at merchants** is very likely an infringement of your patent rights under the group of patents you hold (Patent Nos. 7244817, 7315938, 6964304).

Conclusion: The act of a merchant "offering a discount, privilege, or service by allowing a customer to use points" is an act that is highly likely to constitute infringement of the patent, since it is structurally identical to claims 1, 10, and 11 of the Patent No. 7244817 and No. 7315938.

Comment by inventor/deviser (Yuki Takeuchi)

Patent infringement is a clear criminal act. These three cases are not mere "technology patents. They are an attempt to 'redesign' human behavior, systems, rewards, and incentives, and are the foundation for all industries to evolve into a 'no-loss' and 'acceptable' economy."

Mr. Yuki Takeuchi is currently developing the "A-GEL Gift Point" and "A-GEL Gift Card" services at The Point Organization, Inc. using his patented rights.