Intellectual Property Hight Court Case No. 2018 (Ne) 10034, March 14, 2022 (Presiding Judge Kanno) [Summary of the Judgement and Comments] 1. Claim 1 “A solenoid stored in a fitting hole provided in a counter housing member, the solenoid comprising: a case member configured to be inserted into the fitting hole; a coil member […]
Outline of the Trademark Act, Design Act and Unfair Competition Prevention Act as amended in 2023
1 Process of Amendment Act for Partial Amendment of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, etc. (Act No. 51 of 2023) was enacted on June 7, 2023 and promulgated on June 14, 2023. The major amendments and the effective date are explained in 2 below. 2 Major Amendments and Effective Date 2-1 Enhanced brand […]
Outline of the Copyright Act as amended in 2023
1 Process of Amendment Act for Partial Amendment of the Copyright Act (Act No. 33 of 2023) was enacted on May 17, 2023 and promulgated on May 26, 2023. The major amendments and the effective date are explained in 2 below. 2 Major Amendments and Effective Date 2-1 Establishment of a new adjudication system for the use […]
Intellectual Property Hight Court Case No. 2021 (Gyo-ke) 10096, June 15, 2022 (Presiding Judge Honda) [Summary of the Judgement and Comments] 1. Excerpts from the Judgement on inventive step (① It is possible to extract a coherent technical idea from multiple paragraphs in the cited reference.) “…Whereas paragraphs [0012], [0013], and [0015] of the […]
Intellectual Property High Court Decision of January 31, 2023 (Case No. 2022 [Gyo-ke] 10089―Presiding Judge Kanno) ◆Main text of the case 【Summary of the Judgment】 1. Regarding whether or not a trademark consisting solely of a single color corresponds to Article 3 Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Act The intent of Article 3 […]
Intellectual Property High Court Decision of March 9, 2023 (Case No. 2022 [Gyo-ke] 10122―Presiding Judge Honda) ◆Main text of the case 【Summary of the Judgment】 1. Regarding criteria for determining whether product trademarks are similar or dissimilar The similarity of product trademarks should be determined based on “likelihood of confusion” as to the […]
Supreme Court 2012 (ju) 1204
The Supreme Court decision on interpretation of Product-by-process claims (Case No. 2012 (ju) 1204; Date of judgement: June 5, 2015) December 16,2016 1. In Japan, a product invention can be identified in a claim by its production process (product-by-process claim). In this case, the Supreme Court judged an interpretation of a technical scope of […]
【PATENT ★】IP High Court 2016 (Gyo-Ke) 10278
【PATENT ★】IP High Court Case No. 2016 (Gyo-Ke) 10278; January 15, 2018 (Presiding Judge Takabe) “Novel crystalline form of Pitavastatin calcium” Case: A case in which, by understanding the problem to be solved by the invention abstractly and conceptually, the support requirement for specifications was found to be satisfied. In order for a […]
【PATENT★】IP High Court 2017(Gyo-Ke)10006, 10015
【PATENT ★】IP High Court Case No. 2017 (Gyo-Ke) 10006, 10015; August 22, 2017 “Run-flat tire” Case: A case in which (i) numerical limitations on temperature was not found to be in breach of the clarity requirement even if difference of 1℃ is caused depending on how it is measured, and (ii) an invention of a […]
Tokyo District Court Case No. 2017 (Wa) 40337
Tokyo District Court Case No. 2017 (Wa) 40337 of July 22, 2020 (Presiding Judge SATO) 【PATENT★★】”Information Storage Device” Patent Infringement Case (Ricoh v. Toner cartridge recycling companies): This is the first case in which the Tokyo District Court recognized the plaintiff’s acts as a violation of the Antimonopoly Act (Article 19 and Article 2, Paragraph […]
IP High Court Case 2020 (Gyo-ke) 10005 (TAKABE)
IP High Court Case No. 2020 (Gyo-ke 10005) on November 10, 2020 (Presiding Judge TAKABE) [Patent★★] “Interleaving Paper for Glass Plates” Case: A case in which the court deemed that the invention of the prior application falls under an “invention” which is appropriate material as a cited invention (Article 29-2 of the Patent Act). If […]
Intellectual Property Hight Court Case No.1130 (Wa) 2018, August 31, 2021 (Presiding Judge Tanaka) [Summary of the Judgement, Introduction of the IP High Court’s Grand Panel Case and Some Consideration (Trends After the Grand Panel Case)] 1. Intellectual Property Hight Court Case No.1130 (Wa) 2018, August 31, 2021 (Presiding Judge Tanaka) ~This Judgement~ […]
Intellectual Property High Court Decision of December 26, 2022 (Case No. 2022 [Ne] 10059―Presiding Judge Honda) ◆Main text of the case 【Summary of the Judgment】 1. Validity of the provision in question 1) The provision in question broadly restricts the performers’ activities using their acquired skills and experience after the termination of the […]
April 10, 2023 Intellectual Property High Court Decision of June 16, 2022 (Case No. 2022 [Gyo-ke] 10002―Presiding Judge Tamotsu SHOJI) ◆Main text of the case 【Summary of the Judgment】 1.Regarding the purport and evaluation criteria of Article 3, para.1, item 3 of the Trademark Act The purport of Article 3, para.1, item 3 of the […]
Intellectual Property Hight Court Case No.10111 (Gyo-ke) 2021, June 22, 2022 (Presiding Judge KANNO) [Summary of the Judgement and Comments] 1. Scope of the Patent Claims “…A laser processing apparatus comprising a silicon wafer in which the slot along the aforementioned scheduled cutting line is not formed in the silicon single crystal structure portion…” […]
Intellectual Property Hight Court Case No.10263 (Gyo-ke) 2016, September 26, 2017 (Presiding Judge Takabe) [Summary of the Judgement and Comments] 1. Excerpts from the decision (“Wiring Box” case decision) “The following are the substantive requirements to find the divisional application to be legal: [i] the description or drawing of the original application includes […]
<The Subject Trademark> <The Cited Trademark> January 19, 2023 Intellectual Property High Court Decision of October 6, 2021 (Case No. 2021 [Gyo-ke] 10036―Presiding Judge Tamotsu SHOUJI) ◆Main text of the case https://www.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_jp/617/090617_hanrei.pdf 【Summary of the Judgment】 1.Regarding the criteria of Article 4, para.1, item 11 of the Trademark Act The similarity of trademarks should be […]
<Subject Trademark> <Cited Trademark> KANGOL (in standard characters) January 17, 2023 Intellectual Property High Court Decision of June 16, 2021 (Case No. 2020 [Gyo-ke] 10148―Presiding Judge Toshihiko TSURUOKA) ◆Main text of the case 【Summary of the Judgment】 1. Similarity of trademarks (1) Regarding the general theory of similarity of trademarks Similarity of trademarks should be […]
Intellectual Property Hight Court Case No.10120 (Gyo-ke) 2019, May 19, 2021 Presiding Judge TSURUOKA [Summary of the Judgement and Comments] 1. Summary of the Judgement The court held that“the problem of the occurrence of adverse thrust force (adverse thrust load condition)”was not directly mentioned in the primary reference (Ko 1), but was described in […]
Intellectual Property Hight Court Case No.10059 (Ne) 2020, February 9, 2022 (Presiding Judge Honda) [Summary of the Judgement and Comments] 1. The biggest issue in this case ~Article 104 of the Patent Act The biggest issue in this case is “whether the Appellee’s material is presumed to have been produced using the method of […]
Intellectual Property High Court Decision of September 14, 2022 (Case No. 2022 [Gyo-ke] 10034―Presiding Judge Kanno) ◆Main text of the case 【Summary of the Judgment】 Regarding whether or not the trademark in question corresponds to Article 4, paragraph 1, item 7 of the Trademark Act The application for registration of the trademark in […]
Intellectual Property High Court Decision of January 27, 2022 (Case No. 2021 [Gyo-ke] 10092―Presiding Judge SHOJI) ◆Main text of the case 【Summary of the Judgment】 1. Regarding the criteria of the trademark which “is likely to cause confusion in connection with the goods … pertaining to a business of another person” as prescribed […]
Intellectual Property Hight Court Case No.2019 (gyo-ke) 10046, July 22, 2020 (Presiding Judge Ohtaka) 1. Concerning Inventive Step Concerning inventive step (easily-conceived property), the Intellectual Property High Court found that “it is difficult to consider that it was easy to conceive of adopting a configuration of small parts such as a leaf spring or […]
Support Requirement (Conclusion) Support Requirement is Not admitted. [Claim 1] recites: “…Solutions with storage stability of at least 24 months…” “The present specification does not describe a paronosetron preparation which satisfies the requirements of 24 months, and in light of the common general knowledge as of the filing, it cannot be said that a person […]
Ⅰ. Introduction In recent years, as shown in the figure below, the import of counterfeit goods for personal use has been increasing along with the development of cross-border e-commerce via the internet and international parcel post. In order to strengthen regulations on the import of counterfeit goods for personal use, the Trademark Act and Design Act […]
Intellectual Property High Court Decision of May 19, 2022 (Case No. 2021 [Gyo-ke] 10100―Presiding Judge Ichiro OTAKA) ◆Main text of the case 【Summary of the Judgment】 1. Regarding the purport and evaluation criteria of Article 3, para.1, item 3 of the Trademark Act The purport of Article 3, para.1, item 3 of the […]
<The Registered Trademark> <The Cited Trademark> Intellectual Property High Court Decision of February 22, 2022 (Case No. 2021 [Gyo-ke] 10104―Presiding Judge Ichiro OOTAKA) ◆Main text of the case Summary of the Judgment 1.Whether the trademark is registered for “unfair purposes” (Article 47(1) of the Trademark Act in parentheses) In light of […]
Intellectual High Court Case No. 2019 (Gyo-ke 10159) April 15, 2021 (Presiding Judge Kanno) 1. Difference between the present invention and the main cited invention The claimed invention “comprises an image rotating mechanism, which rotates only the X-ray image displayed on said display part, from among said X-ray images,” whereas the cited invention has […]
Intellectual Property Hight Court Case No.2021 (Ne) 10007, November 16, 2021 (Presiding Judge Honda) (Prior Instance: Tokyo District Court Case No. 2018 (Wa) 29802, December 24, 2020 (Presiding Judge Tanaka) 1. Interpretation of the claim language in the prior instance judgement: Tokyo District Court Case No. 2018 (Wa) 29802 (Excerpt from summary of the […]
Intellectual Property Hight Court Case No.2021 (Ne) 10029, September 21, 2021(Presiding Judge Shoji) (Osaka District Court Case No. 2017 (Wa) 10716, February 18, 2021(Presiding Judge Sugiura), the same conclusion) 1. Excerpt from the Judgements Concerning Theory of Fulfillment of Patentability Conditions among Multiple Entities “…The defendant sold the defendant’s products and carried out […]
Tokyo District Court Case No. 2019 (Wa) 31214, November 5, 2020 (Presiding Judge Tanaka) Excerpt from the Judgement (Section on the inventive step of the parameter invention) * The Tokyo District Court denied the ease of focusing on the parameters and acknowledged inventive step. * The Tokyo District Court acknowledged the significance of the […]
Intellectual Property High Court Decision of January 25, 2022 (Case No. 2021 [Gyo-ke] 10113―Presiding Judge Tamotsu SHOJI) ◆Main text of the case 【Summary of the Judgment】 1. Regarding the purport and evaluation criteria of Article 3, para.1, item 3 of the Trademark Act The purport of Article 3, para.1, item 3 of the […]
<IP High Court> 2007 (Ne) 10032(July 20, 2010)”Container for Molten Metals ” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner won.) Even if a registered design includes public designs in part of it, it is assumed that it will coexist with other featuers and constitute a different design. Therefore, the inclusion of well known or publicly known designs […]
<Supreme Court> 1970(Gyo-Tsu)45(March 19, 1994) “Flexible and elastic hose” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) Easiness to create the design (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. The registered design is not easy to create based on Prior designs. (Design right owner won.) “Similarity” of novelty should be judged from the standpoint of general consumers. In order to refuse on grounds of lack of novelty, the […]
<Supreme Court> 1973(Gyo-Tsu)82(February 28, 1975) “Cap” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should NOT be found. (Applicant lost.) Difference of colors might contribute to “Novelty,” but denid in this case. The combination of colors as pointed out as a difference between the two designs in the court of prior instance (black and yellow in the applied design, dark red and […]
<Supreme Court> 1991 (Gyo-tsu) 139 (February 24, 1995)”Embedded light for ceiling” Case
Prior application (Design Act Article 9(1)) (Conclusion) Rejected as Prior application (Design Act Article 9(1)). In cases where the design in the application for design registration of similar design is similar to another person’s design for which an application for design registration has been filed on an earlier date, except where the application for design […]
<Osaka District Court> 2004 (Wa) 1099(January 17, 2005) “Yukazuka (floor post)” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) The essential parts of the design should be identified by observing the design as a whole and taking into account the nature, use, etc. of the article to which the design relates. Although some of the […]
<IP High Court> 2005 (Gyo-ke) 10134(September 15, 2005) “Postbox” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should NOT be found. (Design right owner lost.) The court affirmed that the Handouts fell under the category of “publications distributed”. When the resistered design and the prior design are observed as a whole, the difference is a partial and weak difference that is limited to “a difference […]
<IP High Court> 2005 (Ne) 10079( October 31, 2005) “Carabiner” Case
Similarity of “article (goods)” (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s “article” is NOT Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) There may be no design separated from an article. Simirality of articles means that when a registered design or a design similar thereto is applied to an article, confusion may occuer. In this case, the […]
<Osaka District Court> 2004 (Wa) 8657(November 24, 2005) “Infusion solution bag” Case
Prior use right (Japanese Design Act, Article 29) (Conclusion) Prior use right was admitted. (Design right owner lost.) The defendants had started making preparations for the production of its products before the plaintiff’s filling of an application for registration of the design, and by concluding that the defendants had a non-exclusive license based on prior […]
<Osaka District Court> 2004 (Wa) 6262(December 15, 2005) “Face puff” Case
Similarity of “article (goods)” (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s “article” is Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner won.) Whether articles are similar each other or not should be judged based on the simirality of the “purposes” and “functions”. Even if the “function” is different, as lon as the “purpose” is the same, it is […]
<Osaka District Court> 2004 (Wa) 14355(January 17, 2006) “Shopping basket” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is Not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) The persons in the purchasing division of a supermarket or a department store, etc. should be regarded as consumers of such shopping baskets and therefore as observers of them. Observers would observe a shopping basket by […]
<IP High Court> 2005 (Gyo-ke) 10679(March 31, 2006)”Connector terminal” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should Not be found because the applied design is too small to be invisible to the naked eye. (Applicant lost.) Even if a small size is invisible to the naked eye, the design is accepted if it is usually observed in a magnified manner at the time of […]
<IP High Court> 2006 (Gyo-ke) 10136(August 24, 2006)”Piano pedal extender platform” Case
Divisional application (Japanese Design Act, Article 10bis(1)) (Conclusion) Divisional application based on the “reference drawing” was rejected. (Applicant lost.) *Under the Japan Design Act, applied design which is not registerd as design right would not be published. “Two or more designs” as used in Article 10-2(1) of the Design Act shall be limited to “designs […]
<IP High Court> 2006 (Gyo-ke) 10088(September 20, 2006) “Metal blind louver” Case
Easiness to create the design (Conclusion) The registered design is NOT easy to create based on Prior designs. (Design right owner won.) In determining whether or not it is easy to create a design, the field to which the design belongs shall be considered. The article related to the prior design is used as a […]
Novelty (Infringement case – Invalid) (Conclusion) Novelty should NOT be found. (Applicant lost.) There are no dofferences between the prior Plaintiff’s product #100 shown in the brousher and the registered design. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/517/000517.pdf
<IP High Court> 2006 (Gyo-ke) 10337(December 11, 2006) “Car stopper block” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) Since the cited defendant’s brochure was a mere color-printed document, the defendant could have made the brochure with a false preparation date, and therefore that the preparation date printed on the document was insufficient to prove the date when it was actually prepared. […]
<Osaka District Court> 2006 (Wa) 7014(December 21, 2006) “Block mat” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) Consumers (contractors) select products by looking at catalogs or actual products. The catalogs show front-view drawings as product drawings. Whereas the resistered design provides an orderly aesthetic feel, in Defendant’s Block mat, the quarter-circle notches provide […]
<IP High Court> 2007 (Gyo-Ke) 10119(September 10, 2007) “Craft puncher” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) Novelty should NOT be found. (Applicant lost.) It is not reasonable to compare the publicly known design with older existing publicly known designs and to recognize essential features for the purpose of determining similarity between the prior designs and the applied design. The judgment on similarity should be based simply […]
<IP High Court> 2007 (Gyo-Ke) 10107 (November 29, 2007) “Elastic damper” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) A combination of common points between the applied design and the prior design does not have a significant design effect on the determination on similarity. In the additional consideration of several differences between them, when the whole of the designs in the present […]
<IP High Court> 2007 (Gyo-Ke) 10209(December 26, 2007) “Packaging container” Case
Easiness to create the design (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) Since the applied design was created with creative ingenuity from various design choices, it is not easy for a person skilled in the art to create the applied design on the basis of the Prior design 3 by appling the Prior design 1 […]
<Tokyo District Court> 2007 (Wa) 1972 (February 19, 2008)”Bucket tip shroud” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) The resistered design has a considerably lower top of the fitted portion as compared with the position of the upper side portions of the left and right tooth plate portions, when mounted on the bucket, closes […]
<IP High Court> 2008 (Gyo-Ke) 10069(August 28, 2008) “Polishing pad” Case
Easiness to create the design (Conclusion) The registered design is not easy to create based on Prior designs. (Design right owner won.) Among the triangular wave zigzag line patterns, there are various line thicknesses and lengths and forming angles of respective linear portions, and there is room for selection, and the width of the groove […]
<Osaka District Court> 2007 (Wa) 1411 (September 11, 2008)”Coupling horn” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Basically, the hidden shape shall not be taken into consideration when considering similarity. Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) “Use relationship” when only part of the product is visually recognizable from the outside. Since Defendant’s horn is contained in spindle, it does […]
<Tokyo District Court> 2008 (Wa) 1089(October 30, 2008)”Clothes hanger)” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) In the resistered design, a semicircular thin plate is attached to a wire-like line on the upper side of the front side of the neck, whereas in the design of the Defendant’s Clothes hanger, the thin […]
<IP High Court> 2008 (Gyo-Ke) 10184(November 26, 2008) “Wristwatch side” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) <Prior design> ① Mounting portion of the belt connecting portion is planar, ② no pattern on the thickness portion of the outer peripheral edge portion of the glass pressing substantially circular ring-shaped portion + 8 fixing screw portions having one groove therein hexagonal […]
<IP High Court> 2008 (Gyo-Ke) 10185(November 26, 2008) “Wristwatch” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) <Prior design> ① Mounting portion of the belt connecting portion is planar, ② no pattern on the thickness portion of the outer peripheral edge portion of the glass pressing substantially circular ring-shaped portion + 8 fixing screw portions having one groove therein hexagonal […]
<IP High Court> 2008 (Gyo-Ke) 10251(December 25, 2008)”Beer pitcher” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) The applied design is basically formed by a straight line in both the folded portion and the pouring spout, the whole length is long, the pouring spout is large and deep, and has a double substantially V-shaped shape in front view, and when […]
<IP High Court> 2008 (Gyo-Ke) 10401(May 28, 2009) “Fluid pressure cylinder” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) The most common form attracts the attention of the consumer when the aesthetic feeling caused by a form other than the common form is not sufficient to exceed the aesthetic feeling caused by the common form. It is not immediately possible to judge […]
<IP High Court> 2009 (Gyo-Ke) 10036(July 21, 2009)”Rubber band” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) When considering similarity, it is considered the shape when the applied design is used. Submission of a certificate of exception to lack of novelty of design does not constitute an admission of similarity. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/424/001424.pdf
<Osaka District Court> 2008 (Wa) 13282 (July 23, 2009)”Cell container for medical testing” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) The essential feature of the registered design is a step which is provided in a manner that it projects nearly perpendicular to the side surface at the level around one-fourth of the height of the container […]
<Osaka District Court> 2008 (Wa) 5712 (September 10, 2009)”Golf ball” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should NOT be found. (Design right owner lost.) *12/362 of the dimples in the registered design are not hexagon but pentagon. Differences in the specific constitution of the design, such as that there is a small number of pentagonal dimples … do not cause any difference that is […]
Japanese case law has established the following five requirements for finding patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (see Ball Spline Bearing Case, Supreme Court decision of February 24, 1998, and Maxacalcitol Case, Supreme Court decision of March 24, 2017). (1) An element of a patented invention that is different from the alleged infringer’s product […]
―Intellectual Property High Court Case No. 2021 (Ne) 10040 of October 14, 2021 (Presiding Judge Masayuki KANNO) [CS related invention] ― (The court of first instance also found that the plaintiff’s product constitutes patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents [the Osaka District Court Case No. 2019 (Wa) 3273 of March 25, 2021 (Presiding Judge […]
–Tokyo District Court Case No. 2017 (Wa )36506 May 19, 2021 (Presiding Judge SATO) 1. Excerpt from the Judgement (Part of the judgment on “sales” at the phase for examination on damages) (C) The defendant’s sales related to the registration of friends and exports to overseas companies other than the “Furufuru” function. The plaintiff […]
Increase in Patent Annuities And Trademark Registration Fees on April 1, 2022
In accordance with the 2021 amendment to the Patent Act, patent annuities will be increased for the first time in about 30 years. Trademark registration fees, etc., will be also raised. The new fee schedule is effective on April 1, 2022. It may be advisable for you to pay before March 31, 2021 to save […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. It was possible to add a Shirasu Balloon to an alkaline solution containing a surfactant, or to change the timing of such addition to either before or after the addition of a fatty acid as is appropriate. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/673/002673.pdf
Damages calculated by Article 102, paragraph (2) of the Patent Act (Conclusion) Damages calculated by Article 102, paragraph (2) of the Patent Act. The amount of the Defendants’ expenses that should be deducted from the sales amount of the infringing products is judged. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/962/002962.pdf
Infringement (Conclusion) Infringement is NOT found. The claim phrase “approximately 1/2” was considered non-infringement. Some of the defendant’s products were within the technical scope of the invention, but were judged to be non-infringing. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/894/002894.pdf
Damages calculated by Article 102, paragraph (2) of the Patent Act (Conclusion) Damages calculated by Article 102, paragraph (2) of the Patent Act is partially (90%) deducted. The degree of reduction is 90% in consideration of the fact that there is a qualitative difference in demand between the Defendant’s products and Plaintiff’ products. Calculated damages […]
Lack of proper procedure (Conclusion) Lack of proper procedure. The JPO decision does not describe a part of the matters specifying the invention in relation with judgment on clarity requirement and is not evaluated as a substantial judgment. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/649/002649.pdf
Clarity Requirement (Conclusion) Clarity Requirement is admitted. The claim language “a side wall integrally forming” is interpreted by considering the description in the Description, and it was decided that there was no lack of clarity requirement. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/650/002650.pdf
Damages (Article 102, paragraph (2) of the Patent Act) (Conclusion) Damages calculated by Article 102, paragraph (2) of the Patent Act is not partially deducted. The court denied the infringer’s assertion that the presumption should be overturned at least by 70% by taking into consideration the percentage of the value of the implementing part of […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. It is not easily conceivable to apply well-known techniques which belong to a different technical field from the main cited invention to the main cited invention. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/675/002675.pdf
A “legitimate reason” prescribed in Article 112-2, paragraph (1) of the Patent Act (Conclusion) A “legitimate reason” prescribed in Article 112-2, paragraph (1) of the Patent Act is NOT found. Plaintiff A could have easily confirmed whether or not the patent fee etc. had been paid by the respective due dates. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi […]
Prior Art Effect (Article 29-2 of the Patent Act) (Conclusion) Invalidated by Prior Art Effect (Article 29-2 of the Patent Act) *The two differences between the present invention and the cited invention were judged to be substantially the same as the minor differences in design. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. *The associated numerical limitations shall be collectively determine for feasibility. *The present invention and the cited invention have different problems. ⇒ There is no incentive to replace the values of the cited invention. *The numerical values of the cited inventions are optimized under specific conditions. ⇒ There is […]
Enablement Requirement (Conclusion) Enablement Requirement is admitted. The file wrapper estoppel does not apply to the determination of enablement requirements. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/677/002677.pdf
Support Requirement (Conclusion) Support Requirement is admitted. *The decision of objection by the Patent Office is incorrect in finding the subject matter of the present invention. *The problem of the invention was grasped abstractly. Optimization was common knowledge in the art. ⇒ Those skilled in the art will recognize that the correct problem of the […]
New matter (Conclusion) Not new matter (Amendment Requirement is admitted) From the disclosure of the present specification, those skilled in the art understand that the change processing is not limited to that in the form performed by the “agreement information generating means”. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/697/002697.pdf
Novelty, Inventive (Conclusion) Novelty, Inventive step is NOT found. Selected invention The patentability was denied because there was no “significant unique effect”. (This is an unusual decision in recent years.) <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/689/002689.pdf
Enablement Requirement (Conclusion) Enablement Requirement is admitted. The mechanism described in the specification does not actually occur. ⇒ The position of the “upper part of the hot air stream” cannot be specified. ⇒Enablement Requirement is admitted. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/995/002995.pdf
Jointly owned patent rights (Conclusion) ”Otherwise agree” of Patent act Article 73(2) is admitted. <Article 73(2)>”Where a patent right is jointly owned, unless otherwise agreed upon by contract, each of the joint owners of the patent right may work the patented invention without the consent of the other joint owner(s).” *”Otherwise agree” of Patent act […]
Infringement (Conclusion) Infringement is NOT found. The “use limit” of the Present Invention means the “amount of money usable within a predetermined period of time that is set at the contract and fixed to some degree “, and the usable amount of a prepaid card and the like that, each time electronic money is credited/debited, […]
―Tokyo District Court Case No. 2016 (Wa) 25436 of September 24, 2020 (Judge Norio YANO)― ★Main text of the case 1. Point ① of the decision (regarding the “doctrine of equivalents”) (1) The third requirement (the Court recognized the conceivability of the interchange in the same framework as that for the determination of […]
Intellectual Property High Court Decision of June 30, 2021 (Case No. 2021 [Gyo-ke] 10010―Presiding Judge Ichiro OTAKA) ◆Main text of the case 【Summary of the Judgment】 1. Regarding criteria for determining whether a “trademark is likely to mislead as to the quality of the goods or services” as provided for in Article 4, […]
―Intellectual Property High Court Case No. 2020 (Ne) 10044 of June 28, 2021 (Presiding Judge Toshihiko TSURUOKA)― ◆Main text of the case 1. An excerpt from the decision …[T]here were the following three problems…: (i) …when a prepaid card is inserted into a card reader/writer, the prepaid card cannot be seen from the […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. Even if sodium alginate is well known as a thickening agent which constitutes a viscous water-based liquid, there is no sufficient evidence to find that sodium alginate was well known as a thickening agent having a film forming ability. There is no motivation to delay generation of carbon […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. Corrections based on examples of components of commercial products and blending of examples etc. described in the specification do not fall under new matters, but the difference between the present invention and the cited invention was considered to have been not easily conceivable by a person skilled in […]
Support Requirement (Conclusion) Support Requirement is admitted. *The problem of the invention was grasped abstractly. The mechanism was common knowledge in the art. ⇒Support Requirement was admitted. In 2017 (Wa) 13797, the support requirement was denied because it could not be recognized that the problem could be solved if 0.8≦L≦1.4. Regarding support requirement, this case […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. The Figure 10 in the Main Cited Invention illustrates only the structure on the front side of the mesh-style tricot structure in which the stitch position where no loop is formed exists and does not illustrate the structures of both the front side and back side. <Writer: […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is NOT found. *Combining a sub-reference solving a problem different from that of the present invention with a main reference is considered to be easy to conceive “by another reason” (by the logic to solve a problem which is different from the problem of the presente invention). ⇒ The inventive […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. The inventive step of the numerically limited invention was found. Effect of the invention was also emphasized. (Not Invalidation by Prior Art Effect (Article 29-2 of the Patent Act)) <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/679/002679.pdf
Prior Art Effect (Article 29-2 of the Patent Act) (Conclusion) Invalidated by Prior Art Effect (Article 29-2 of the Patent Act) *Judgement of prior application invention for Prior Art Effect. (Same as inventive step) The patent applicant pointed out inconsistencies in the experimental data of the prior application specification and asserted that the system of […]
Indirect Infringement (Conclusion) Indirect Infringement is NOT admitted. An indirect infringement is not established only by forming a structure which is a prerequisite of the characteristic technical means of the invention. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/886/002886.pdf
Damages (Article 102, paragraph (1) of the Patent Act) (Conclusion) A damages calculation method of an amount of damages based on Article 102, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Act and the circumstances to be taken into account in the calculation. <Summary of the Judgment> (1) The “products that the patentee could have been sold if […]
Damages (Article 102, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act) (Conclusion) Damages is calculated based on not LED but TV. Caluculating the amount of money based on the Article 102, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act (reasonable royalty) The royalty rate and the amount of damages were determined based on the amount of sales of the […]
Novelty (Conclusion) Novelty is Not found. (Claim 1 and 7 which has been enforced in another Patent Infringement Cases.) The point that the “state capable of sending out” remains after the “certain period of time” in Present Invention 3 is finished and until the “state incapable of sending out” is brought about is a common […]
Clarity Requirement (Conclusion) Clarity Requirement is Not admitted. The method of measuring the claimed “median particle size weighed by mass” is unknown. ⇒Clarity Requirement is Not admitted. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/681/002681.pdf
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is NOT found. Even if well-known techniques are applied, there is no description or suggestion in cited invention 1 that mental care should be provided for virtual reality animations, or that a plurality of different virtual reality animation files selected according to the psychological state of a potential customer and […]