Articles on Patent

[Patent★★] Patent Infringement Litigation “5-aminolevulinic acid phosphate salt” Case: A case in which the Tokyo District Court denied the eligibility of the cited invention yet approved the novelty of the present invention because the substance name of the invention was mentioned in the cited document, even though it was not feasible for a person skilled in the art at the priority date to carry out the invention without trial and error.

[Patent★★] Patent Administrative Litigation “Aminosilane” Case: A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court recognized novelty and inventive step on the grounds that the substance name was listed in the cited reference, even though at the time of priority date, it was not possible for a person skilled in the art to manufacture or obtain the substance without trial and error.

［Patent★★] Patent Administrative Litigation “Antigen Binding Proteins to Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin Kesin Type 9 (PCSK9)”: A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court rejected the logic that the support requirement is satisfied by reciting a particular effect in the claim concerning a functionally expressed reach-through claim unlike the final judgment in the previous case.

[Patent★] Patent Administrative Litigation “Marine Vessel” Case: The fourth case in which the Intellectual Property High Court recognizes an inventive step through a “Disclaimer”．

[Patent★] Patent Infringement Litigation “Massage Machine” Case: A case in which the decision of the Osaka District Court was reversed and the alleged infringing products were determined to be included in the technical scope of the patented invention. A case in which the court held that Article 102, Paragraph 2, of the Patent Act is applicable when the patentee’s products and the infringing products compete abroad. A case in which the court indicates the norm regarding the overlapping application of Article 102, Paragraph 3, of the Patent Act in relation to the portion of the presumption overturned by Article 102, Paragraph 2, of the Patent Act.

[Patent★] Patent Infringement Litigation “Bone Fracture Fixation System” Case: A case in which the Intellectual Property Court approved the application of Article 102, Paragraph 2, of the Patent Act based on the fact that a group company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of a common ultimate parent company embodies the patent right when said group company sells products.

[Patent★] Patent Infringement Litigation “Device for displaying ladder circuits in the event of an abnormality in a programmable controller” Case: A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court held that each existing component was considered an essential component for the solving the problem of the invention. A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court held that it is sufficient for the defendant to recognize and acknowledge that there is high probability that persons within the range of non-exceptional cases will use the accused product to infringe the patent.

[Patent★] Patent Infringement Litigation “Electroformed Tube” Case: The first and only lower court case to require “impossible or impractical circumstances” with respect to clarity requirement of a product invention specified by a manufacturing method, and to hold that the clarity requirement was violated.

[Patent★★] Patent Infringement Litigation “Image Forming Apparatus” Case (A case in which a divisional application was filed from a parent application to a child application and then to a grandchild application, the court held that the filing date of the grandchild application was retroactive only until to the actual filing date of the child application on the grounds that the child application was illegal for violation of divisional filing requirements and addition of new matter, and denied inventive step based on publicly known documents after the filing date of the parent application but before the actual filing date of the child.)

[Patent★★] Grand Panel Decision of the Intellectual Property High Court (foreign server issues and contrast with prior case decisions are included)