Articles on Domestic

【Trademark Act ★】A case in which the Court maintained the Japan Patent Office’s decision which dismissed a request for an invalidation trial filed by the plaintiff against the defendant’s registered trademark “パールアパタイト” which consists of common characters, and whose designated goods are “chemicals” in Class 1, “cosmetics, soaps” in Class 3, etc., finding that the defendant’s registered trademark is not likely to mislead as to the quality of the goods or services; therefore, the defendant’s registered trademark does not fall under Article 4, Paragraph 1, Item 16 of the Trademark Act.

【PATENT★★】”FLUID FEEDING APPARATUS, …AND PROGRAM” Case: A case in which the Court denied the valid admission by the defendant with regard to whether the structure of the defendant’s product meets the constituent features of the Present Invention in the Answer submitted in the original case, and revoked the original decision which found that there are no disputes on the constituent features, finding that the structure of defendant’s product does not cause any problem to be solved by the Present Invention, and thus does not fall within the technical scope of the Present Invention (the defendant’s product does not literally satisfy the constituent features of the Present Invention).

【Copyright Act ★】A case in which, with respect to a slide named “ミニタコ (Minitako)” which is a type of playground equipment imitating the shape of an octopus produced by the appellant (the plaintiff in the first instance) for parks, the Court denied copyrightability thereof as either artistic or architectural work.

[Patent★★] “Brunnian Link Making Device and Kit”Case: A case in which the “partial priority” under the Paris Convention was approved

[Patent★] “Cellulose Powder” Case: A case in which the court held different judgements that the enablement requirement is satisfied but the support requirement is not satisfied.

【PATENT★★】”ANTIPRURITIC AGENT” Case: A case in which the Court found that there is no motivation for using a compound stated in the cited document as an antipruritic agent on the grounds that description in the cited document is only a “hypothesis which lacks technical grounds”, and “there was plenty of room remaining for a study at the time of the priority date of the Present Invention”. (The patent at issue in this case is the same as that in Intellectual Property High Court Case No. 2020 (Gyo-ke) 10063, in which the court revoked the Japan Patent Office’s decision rejecting an application for the registration of extension of the duration of the patent at issue.)

【PATENT★】”COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING 2,3-DICHLORO-1,1,1-TRI- FLUOROPROPANE, 2-CHLORO-1,1,1-TRIFLUOROPROPENE, 2-CHLORO-1,1,1,2- TETRAFLUOROPROPANE, OR 2,3,3,3-TETRAFLUOROPROPENE” Case: A case in which the Court found that an amendment is considered to have added new matters (violation of requirements for amendments) on the grounds that there is no description of the reason for the necessity of the specific combination of three types of compounds which are separately described in the specification.

【Copyright Act ★】A case in which, with respect to a slide named “ミニタコ (Minitako)” which is a type of playground equipment imitating the shape of an octopus produced by the plaintiff for parks, the Court denied copyrightability thereof as either artistic or architectural work.

【PATENT★】”LEARNING IMPLEMENT” Case: A case in which the Court found that the plaintiff’s product constitutes patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of absence of right to demand an injunction.

[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 an invention lacks concreteness, or technical content of an invention is insufficiently disclosed even taking into consideration the common general technical knowledge of a person ordinarily skilled in the art, it does not fall under the “invention” and does not have an effect of excluding the later application provided for in this Article