Articles on Patent

[Patent★] Patent Infringement Litigation seeking injunction, etc. “Lyophilized Preparation Containing High-purity PTH and Method for Producing Same” Case: A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court recognized an inventive step on the ground that it was not permitted to extract a part of a configuration from an embodiment of a cited reference and recognize it as a cited invention; moreover, it was not easily conceivable to consider removing parts other than the part in question.

[Patent★★] Patent Infringement Litigation “Thermoplastic resin composition, resin-molded article and polarizer-protective film using the same, and method for producing resin-molded article” Case: A case in which the first court case in Japan to recognize fulfillment of the first requirement of the doctrine of equivalents for an invention with numerical limitations; however, a case in which the fifth requirement of the doctrine was denied, and thus infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was denied.

[Patent★] Patent Administrative Litigation “Agent for Treating Movement Disorders” Case: A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court recognizes novelty and inventive step, holding that, to be recognized as a use invention, it is necessary for a person skilled in the art to understand and recognize the enablement for the target use; merely obtaining promising results at a preliminary testing level with reference-level data is insufficient.

[Patent★] Patent Administration Litigation “Lamp and Lighting Device” Case: A case in which the court recognized a support requirement for samples that only marginally failed to meet the effect stated in the specification, based on fitting deviations in measured data, as they were deemed to achieve “roughly the desired” effect.

[Patent★★] Appeal Court for Patent Infringement “Functional Water” Case: A case in which the court of first instance determined a patented invention to be invalidated for lack of novelty based on a publicly worked invention, but for which the court of appeal accepted the defense regarding the correction of patent raised during the appeal proceedings, and as a result, the patent holder won the case on appeal (the corrected patent was deemed valid).

Patent★ Patent Administrative Litigation “Program” Case: A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court recognized a sub-cited invention as a “higher level concept” and denied the inventive step of a “Disclaimer”

[Patent★] Patent Administrative Litigation “Training Apparatus” Case: A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court recognized an inventive step on the ground that it was not permitted to extract a part of a configuration from an embodiment of a cited reference and recognize it as a cited invention; moreover, it was not easily conceivable to consider removing parts other than the part in question.

[Patent★] Patent Administrative Litigation “Gas-System Extinguishment Facility”: A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court reversed a JPO decision on patent opposition in which a sub-citation was excessively abstracted (high-level conceptualization), and recognized inventive step.

[Patent★] Patent Infringement Litigation “A composition containing 2,3-dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoropropane, 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 held that for inventions that identify impurities or byproducts for which there is no description of effects in the specification, support requirements were violated due to the lack of a description of the issue, etc.