Articles on Patent

[Patent★] “Solenoid Actuator” Patent Infringement Injunction Appeal Court Case: The case in which the Intellectual Property High Court changed the claim interpretation of whether the solenoid needs to be “sealed” by the end member itself, and the patentee won a reversal.

[Patent★] “Light Source, Backlight Unit Including Light Source and Liquid Crystal Display Device” Case: The case in which the Intellectual Property High Court denied the inventive step on the grounds that it was possible to extract a coherent technical idea from multiple paragraphs in the cited reference and that the numerical limitation without data was a design matter.

[Patent★] “Retroreflecting sheet having printed layer” Patent Infringement Injunction Case: A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court considered the royalty rate (5%) proposed by the patentee during pre-litigation negotiations as one factor and decided that the royalty rate to be determined ex post facto would be twice that rate (10%).

[Patent★★]“LASER BEAM WORKING MACHINE” Case: A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court found the absence of grooves from the drawings in the specification and allowed the correction of the claims excluding the grooves. A case in which the court found inventive step because the grooves were essential to the cited invention, and therefore, there were grounds for hindrance.

[Patent★★] “Wiring Box” Case: Litigation of Rescinding the Trial Decisions Made by the JPO on a Patent Case.A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court held that when a divisional application was filed with a parent, child, and grandchild applications …, the filing date of the grandchild’s application was not retroactive to the filing date of the parent’s application if the child application violated the divisional requirement/added new matter.

[Patent★] Litigation Seeking of Rescinding the Trial Decision Case: A case in which a general problem that could be recognized by a person skilled in the art on the filing date of the patent application is also applicable to the cited invention, although there is no reference to the cited reference, therefore, the motivation is admitted. A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court denied the inventive step and rescinded the JPO decision.

[Patent★] “Equol-containing extract, method for production thereof” Patent infringement Appellate Court Case: A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court presumed the method for producing the Appellee’s products by applying Article 104 of the Patent Act. A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court granted a priority claim and determined the Original Filing Date as “the date of the patent application”. A case in which the Patentee won a reversal in the Intellectual Property High Court.

[Patent★] “Mounting Structure for Circuit Breaker” Case: A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court found that the divisional application in which the specific description in the original specification with respect to a configuration not directly related to the problem of the invention was abstracted and generically conceptualized and added to the scope of the claims does not fall under the addition of new matters. A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court denied the easily-conceived property for one of the reasons that the parts are small.

[Patent★] “X-ray Fluoroscopic Imaging Apparatus”Case: A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court emphasized that the present invention newly took up a task in question as the problem to be solved, and denied easily-conceived property (recognized inventive step) on the ground of the difference between the problem to be solved by the present invention and the problem to be solved by the main cited invention.

[Patent★] Patent Infringement Appellate Court Case demand for injunction: A Case in which, concerning the interpretation of the claim language of a plurality of “chambers”, the Intellectual Property High Court found that the defendant’s products do not satisfy the constituent elements of the patented invention of a product with the limitation “can be communicated with each other”. On the other hand, the defendant’s methods satisfy the constituent elements of the patented invention of a method without limitation. A Case in which the Intellectual Property High Court reversed the prior instance judgement which found that both defendant’s products and defendant’s methods did not satisfy the constituent elements of the patented invention.