To the Director of Mugen Denko Co.,

Ltd. 1-1012, Ikeba, Tempaku-ku, Nagoya,
468-0055, Japan

Subject: Usage of airbag jackets

Dear Director,
Your company is one of the main manufacturers of so-called “airbag jackets” (vests). To our knowledge, production is carried out based on the patent held by Kenji Takeuchi. I would hereby like to inform you that in the near future, in representation of my client Tamás Straub (Hungary), we wish to initiate a deletion procedure against the patent. Our claim is based on the fact that the patent was granted to Kenji Takeuchi based on a deficient examination for novelty. According to the legislation on patents, inventions must be a novelty on a global scale at the time of submission. However, the solution devised by Mr Takeuchi lacked the indispensible criteria for inventions and patents: that of novelty. I have appended the following documents pertaining to the solution with earlier priority devised by my client Tamás Straub:
1. the original description of the patent application of 1976 (translated into English),
2. a photocopy of the announcement published in Magyar Szabadalmi Közlöny (Gazette for Patents and Trade Marks) (issue 9, 1977) (the date of prior art),
3. the English translation of the description,
4. a copy of the description published in issue 1983/5 of the Hungarian Autó-motor journal.

The patent application documentation can be requested at any time from the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office, and the following website contains further information on the subject at issue: www.motor-airbag.com I would like to note that my client did not conclude the entire patent procedure at the time, but irrespective of this fact, the airbag jacket and the substantive elements thereof, i.e. the solution was made public in 1977 or, at the latest, beyond any reasonable doubt, in 1983 upon the patent application . You can verify the above facts by comparing the description of the patent report made by my client in 1976 with the product manufactured by your company. Even an objective examination reveals much similarity, and based on the description, the expert can manufacture the current product based on his best knowledge. Taking the foregoing into account, your were in all probability mistaken when you paid/pay license fees to Kenji Takeuchi as holder of the patent for a global novelty.

I would hereby like to ask you to state your position in this issue within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Please state whether you acknowledge my client’s priority, and if you are still making payments for the use of the patent, whether you are willing to pay liquidated damages to my client under the legal title of know-how fee.

Sincerely yours,
In representation of Tamás Straub

Antal Török
Certified mechanical engineer
Industrial property protection expert witness