Articles on Patent

【PATENT ★★】”Topical Ophthalmic Formulation for Treating Allergic Eye Diseases” Case: A case in which the IP High Court, to which the case was remanded by the Supreme Court, found that an inventive step was acknowledged because the Present Invention has an unpredictable and remarkable effect, although the previous lawsuit judgment which determined that the different feature (the use) in the Present Invention would have been easily conceivable became final and binding.

[Patent★] “System Operating Method” Case（CAPCOM Co., Ltd. v. Koei Tecmo Games Co., Ltd.）; A case in which the judgement of IP court held that indirect infringement of method invention (Article 101, paragraph (4) of the Patent Act) includes an article working the patent invention in combination with other articles. It is not necessary to possess the article actually.

【PATENT ★】Tokyo District Court Case No. 2018 (Wa) 13400; September 11, 2019 (Presiding Judge SATO)

【PATENT ★】IP High Court Case No. 2019 (Gyo-ke) 10095; March 12, 2020 (Presiding Judge TAKABE)

[Patent★] “Laminated Body of Sheet-like Objects（wet tissue）” Case: A case in which the court held that the products did not satisfy the claim recitation “approximately in a width of 1/2” when a deviation rate was larger than around 10% of “1/2” in consideration of the problem to be solved by the invention.

【PATENT ★★】IP High Court Grand Panel Case No. 2019 (Ne) 10003; February 28, 2020 (Presiding Judge TAKABE) < Original Decision: Osaka District Court Case No. 2016 (Wa) 5345; November 29, 2018 >

【PATENT ★】IP High Court Case No. 2019 (Gyo-ke) 10026; December 11, 2019 (Presiding Judge TSURUOKA)

【PATENT ★★】IP High Court Case No. 2018 (Gyo-ke) 10110; November 14, 2019 (Presiding Judge OTAKA)

【PATENT ★】IP High Court Case No. 2018 (Gyo-ke) 10151; September 18, 2019 (Presiding Judge TSURUOKA)

[Patent*] “Roll paper for packaging medicine” (Court of Second Instance) – A case in which the appellants of an infringement lawsuit other than a claimant or an intervenor of an invalidation trial who did not file a suit for revocation of the trial decision of dismissing the request for the invalidation trial are restricted from making a defense of invalidity based on the same fact and the same evidence.