Jointly owned patent rights (Conclusion) ”Otherwise agree” of Patent act Article 73(2) is admitted. ＜Article 73(2)＞”Where a patent right is jointly owned, unless otherwise agreed upon by contract, each of the joint owners of the patent right may work the patented invention without the consent of the other joint owner(s).” *”Otherwise agree” of Patent act […]
Infringement (Conclusion) Infringement is NOT found. The “use limit” of the Present Invention means the “amount of money usable within a predetermined period of time that is set at the contract and fixed to some degree “, and the usable amount of a prepaid card and the like that, each time electronic money is credited/debited, […]
―Tokyo District Court Case No. 2016 (Wa) 25436 of September 24, 2020 (Judge Norio YANO)― ★Main text of the case 1. Point ① of the decision (regarding the “doctrine of equivalents”) (1) The third requirement (the Court recognized the conceivability of the interchange in the same framework as that for the determination of […]
Intellectual Property High Court Decision of June 30, 2021 (Case No. 2021 [Gyo-ke] 10010―Presiding Judge Ichiro OTAKA) ◆Main text of the case 【Summary of the Judgment】 1. Regarding criteria for determining whether a “trademark is likely to mislead as to the quality of the goods or services” as provided for in Article 4, […]
―Intellectual Property High Court Case No. 2020 (Ne) 10044 of June 28, 2021 (Presiding Judge Toshihiko TSURUOKA)― ◆Main text of the case 1. An excerpt from the decision …[T]here were the following three problems…: (i) …when a prepaid card is inserted into a card reader/writer, the prepaid card cannot be seen from the […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. Even if sodium alginate is well known as a thickening agent which constitutes a viscous water-based liquid, there is no sufficient evidence to find that sodium alginate was well known as a thickening agent having a film forming ability. There is no motivation to delay generation of carbon […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. Corrections based on examples of components of commercial products and blending of examples etc. described in the specification do not fall under new matters, but the difference between the present invention and the cited invention was considered to have been not easily conceivable by a person skilled in […]
Support Requirement (Conclusion) Support Requirement is admitted. *The problem of the invention was grasped abstractly. The mechanism was common knowledge in the art. ⇒Support Requirement was admitted. In 2017 (Wa) 13797, the support requirement was denied because it could not be recognized that the problem could be solved if 0.8≦L≦1.4. Regarding support requirement, this case […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. The Figure 10 in the Main Cited Invention illustrates only the structure on the front side of the mesh-style tricot structure in which the stitch position where no loop is formed exists and does not illustrate the structures of both the front side and back side. <Writer: […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is NOT found. *Combining a sub-reference solving a problem different from that of the present invention with a main reference is considered to be easy to conceive “by another reason” (by the logic to solve a problem which is different from the problem of the presente invention). ⇒ The inventive […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. The inventive step of the numerically limited invention was found. Effect of the invention was also emphasized. (Not Invalidation by Prior Art Effect (Article 29-2 of the Patent Act)) <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/679/002679.pdf
Prior Art Effect (Article 29-2 of the Patent Act) (Conclusion) Invalidated by Prior Art Effect (Article 29-2 of the Patent Act) *Judgement of prior application invention for Prior Art Effect. (Same as inventive step) The patent applicant pointed out inconsistencies in the experimental data of the prior application specification and asserted that the system of […]
Indirect Infringement (Conclusion) Indirect Infringement is NOT admitted. An indirect infringement is not established only by forming a structure which is a prerequisite of the characteristic technical means of the invention. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/886/002886.pdf
Damages (Article 102, paragraph (1) of the Patent Act) (Conclusion) A damages calculation method of an amount of damages based on Article 102, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Act and the circumstances to be taken into account in the calculation. <Summary of the Judgment> (1) The “products that the patentee could have been sold if […]
Damages (Article 102, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act) (Conclusion) Damages is calculated based on not LED but TV. Caluculating the amount of money based on the Article 102, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act (reasonable royalty) The royalty rate and the amount of damages were determined based on the amount of sales of the […]
Novelty (Conclusion) Novelty is Not found. (Claim 1 and 7 which has been enforced in another Patent Infringement Cases.) The point that the “state capable of sending out” remains after the “certain period of time” in Present Invention 3 is finished and until the “state incapable of sending out” is brought about is a common […]
Clarity Requirement (Conclusion) Clarity Requirement is Not admitted. The method of measuring the claimed “median particle size weighed by mass” is unknown. ⇒Clarity Requirement is Not admitted. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/681/002681.pdf
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is NOT found. Even if well-known techniques are applied, there is no description or suggestion in cited invention 1 that mental care should be provided for virtual reality animations, or that a plurality of different virtual reality animation files selected according to the psychological state of a potential customer and […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. *Limitation of super-conceptualization of well-known technology (hindsight) To abstract the semiconductor laminated body structure and the technical meanings so as to make them a generic concept from the matters described in each of the cited documents and to introduce the employment of the composition graded layer in which […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. *The recognition of cited inventions is sufficient to the extent that it is necessary to carry out the technical matters necessary for comparison with the present invention without excessive examination. ⇒ It is not needed to consider in more detail. *The decision of the Patent Office broadly identified […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. *The main cited invention and the secondary cited invention have different purposes. ⇒ When both are combined, the configuration corresponding to the difference in the object of the main invention is changed. ⇒ There are obstructive factors. *Heisei 30 (Wa) 21448, which was pending at the same time, […]
Infringement (Conclusion) Infringement is found. Two patent infringements were found. The amount of damages under Article 102, para.2 of the Patent Act was determined to be the amount of damages caused by the infringement of either patent. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/000/003000.pdf
Support Requirement (Conclusion) Support Requirement is admitted. *The reason why the blank values of the respective examples are different is that they are naturally derived. ⇒ The embodiment is not an error, and it can be understood that a person skilled in the art at the time of filing the present patent application can solve […]
Support Requirement, Enablement Requirement (Conclusion) Support Requirement is Not admitted. Enablement Requirement is admitted. The enablement requirement questioned whether it could be measured under these conditions (hydrolysis). ⇒Enablement Requirement is admitted. For considerring support requirement, the defendant’s assertion that the degree of level-off polymerization was changed by hydrolysis was recognized, and the plaintiff’s assertion that […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. “… (omit) …” (Different Feature 2); and “in the Present Amended Invention, a channel for the coolant liquid is formed between the first rotary drum and the bottom member, while in the Cited Invention, it is not known whether or not the channel as above is formed” (Different […]
Infringement (Conclusion) Infringement is NOT found. * The IP High Court overturned the original Tokyo District Court decision. The Tokyo District Court interpreted that the particle size was limited to 10 micrometers or less. The IP High Court interpreted that the particle size was not limited to 10 micrometers or less. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi […]
Support Requirement (Conclusion) Support Requirement is admitted. Support requirement is recognized as being understood by those skilled in the art to be able to solve the problem of the invention, although the examples and the claims are slightly different. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/737/002737.pdf
Indirect Infringement (Conclusion) Indirect Infringement is admitted. (Patent Act 102(2)) In making a demand under the preceding paragraph, the patentee or exclusive licensee may demand measures necessary for the prevention of such infringement including the disposal of products constituting such act of infringement (including, in the case of a patented invention of a process of producing products, products produced by the act of infringement; the same shall apply in Article 102(1)) and the removal of facilities used for the act of infringement. Indirect Infringement of Patent Act 102 (2) shall be established if a non-exceptional person is aware and accepts that there is a high probability that the product will be used for the […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is NOT found (Claim 1). Inventive step is found (Claim 2). Claim 1 is limited only within the numerical range of the cited invention with the same parameters, and the inventive step is denied. Claim 2, wherein the compound was selected, was admitted to find inventive step. （The purpose of […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is NOT found. In the present case, it was ruled that “arrangements on games” also required logical reasoning using publicly-known technology etc. *The cited prior art was only one YouTube video <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/743/002743.pdf
Support Requirement (Conclusion) Support Requirement is admitted. These effects are based on the structure of the article called the “notch portion” provided on the lead in a specific form, and the structure required for that is specified in the present corrected inventions. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/764/002764.pdf
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is NOT found. When determineing inventive step, in finding the different features between the present invention and the main cited invention, it is reasonable to find the integral structure as a unit from a viewpoint of solution of the technical problem of the invention, and determination not considering such viewpoints, […]
Claim for Employee’s Invention Compensation The judgment approved the claim to the limit of approximately 170,000 yen. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/952/002952.pdf
Infringement (Conclusion) Infringement is NOT found. The “means to guide vehicles to the second lane” of the Invention need to be configured to guide a vehicle to the second lane without requiring any further action such as calling an operator via the intercom. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/953/002953.pdf
Inventive step and “effect” After Supreme Court case 2018(Gyo-Hi)69 (Conclusion) Inventive step is found based on “effect”. Even if the construction of the present unventuin is easily conceivable, inventive step was recognized as having a remarkable effect which cannot be predicted by a person skilled in the art. ⇒ “Effectiveness” is positioned as an “Independent […]
Novelty (Conclusion) Novelty is Not found. The court of the second instance dismissed the defence of lack of novelty based on Otsu-14 on the grounds that the defence had been made at the time. ⇒ The defendant in the first instance, in the second instance did not assert that the defendant in the first instance […]
Patentability (Conclusion) Patentability is Not admitted. This is not an “invention” of Article 2-1 of the Patent Act since its nature is exclusively directed to human-made arrangement itself and does not use the scientific laws established for the phenomena and orders of the nature, and it is not a creation of technical ideas “utilizing the […]
Infringement (Conclusion) Infringement is NOT found. =The original judgement ＜Tokyo District Court＞ 2017(Wa) 35663 The present description clearly distinguishes the “soybean hypocotyl extract” from the “soybean hypocotyl” as raw material for fermentation for producing a “fermented soybean hypocotyl product”, and discloses that the “soybean hypocotyl extract” is not suitable as a raw material for fermentation […]
Claim for Employee’s Invention Compensation (Conclusion) Modification of the prior instance judgment The judgment partially changed the judgment of the prior instance and approved the claim to the limit of approximately 29,590,000 yen. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/771/002771.pdf
DOE (Doctrine of Equivalence) (Conclusion) DOE (Doctrine of Equivalence) is Not admitted. =Appealed case <IP High Court> 2020 (Ne) 10041 affirmed this. Since the defendant’s system does not transmit one piece of information created on the basis of two pieces of information, i.e., ticket information and ticket issuance information, to the terminal, the defendant’s system […]
Support Requirement (Conclusion) Support Requirement is admitted. It is construed that it is sufficient to state the solution to the problem to the extent that a person ordinarily skilled in the art can reasonably expect that the problem can be solved in light of common general technical knowledge, and it is construed that it is […]
Support Requirement (Conclusion) Support Requirement is admitted. It is construed that it is sufficient to state the solution to the problem to the extent that a person ordinarily skilled in the art can reasonably expect that the problem can be solved in light of common general technical knowledge, and it is construed that it is […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found *The problems to be solved of the main cited invention and the secondary cited invention were grasped concretely. ⇒ There is no motivation to combine the two cited inventions because their problems to be solved are different. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/774/002774.pdf
Antimonopoly Act (and Patent Act) (Conclusion) Infringement is NOT found This is the first case in which a Japanese Court recognized the plaintiff’s acts as a violation of the Antimonopoly Act (Article 19 and Article 2, Paragraph 9, Item 6 of the Antimonopoly Act, and Paragraph 14 of the Designation of Unfair Trade Practices) and […]
“Working of the patented invention for experimental or research purposes” (Article 69-1 of the Patent Act) (Conclusion) “Working of the patented invention for experimental or research purposes” (Article 69-1 of the Patent Act) is admitted–Patentee lost A case in which the Tokyo District Court found to the effect that experiments or research conducted to obtain […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found In the cited invention, there is no motivation to change the rear door because it is located in a position where it is easy to perform maintenance. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/767/002767.pdf
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is NOT found Under the Japanese Patent Law in 2020, a correction had to be filed by all co-owners. In this case, the co-owner of the Patent was the appellant of an invalidation trial. Naturally, the other co-owner who was the requester of the invalidation trial did not consent to […]
Requset to transfer a share of the Patent Right (Conclusion) Requset to transfer the whole of Defendant 1’s co-ownership share of the Patent Right is denied As a natural premise of the Business Collaboration Agreement, Defendant 1 would use the Patent Right as long as it holds a co-ownership interest in it. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi […]
Inventorship (Conclusion) Plaintiff’s inventorship is not admitted When finding inventorship, the person’s contribution to the followings are considered: (1) conceiving of the technical ideas of the Invention; (2) preparing and selecting the anti-PD-L1 antibody; and (3) designing and constructing the experimental system necessary for the demonstration of the hypothesis, and the degree of the person’s […]
Support Requirement (Conclusion) Support Requirement is admitted *The judgment of the IP High Court Grand Panel case (2006(Gyo-ke)10563) is only applied to a so-called parametric invention, and therefore it is outside the range or claimed up parameter. *Even if the effect is reduced by a configuration change, support requirement is recognized because it is within […]
(Conclusion) Inventive step is NOT found The Cited Invention was interpreted broadly. In the explanation of FIG. 1, even if the lower purity oxygen is withdrawn as liquid, whereby a large amount of higher purity oxygen is obtained, it only illustrates the most preferred embodiment, and it cannot be considered that the withdrawal of lower […]
A “legitimate reason” prescribed in Article 184-4, paragraph (4) of the Patent Act (Conclusion) A “legitimate reason” prescribed in Article 184-4, paragraph (4) of the Patent Act is NOT found The lawyer of the law firm cannot be found to have taken due care to avoid failing to meet the deadline for the procedure for […]
Infringement (Conclusion) Infringement is NOT found. The constituent component “a culture solution containing arginine” is not included in a fermentation raw material, but corresponds to a nutritional component for the purpose of promoting fermentation efficiency and the like, which is mixed with the above-mentioned fermentation raw material and the like in a fermentation treatment step. […]
DOE (Doctrine of Equivalence) (Conclusion) DOE (Doctrine of Equivalence) is admitted *Equivalent infringement was found on the requirements due to a method removed in an amendment. *An equal infringement was established on the method removed by an amendment corresponding to a notice of reasons for refusal of lack of inventive step. (Along with global trends […]
Support Requirement (Conclusion) Support Requirement is admitted The plaintiff asserted that the examples were results obtained under certain conditions and cannot be generalized. The court judged that the mechanism could be generalized through detailed analysis. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/929/002929.pdf
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found Differences with respect to the same configuration shall not be separated, and feasibility shall not be judged independently as separate differences. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/842/002842.pdf
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is NOT found The common general knowledge and well-known matters at the time of filing of the original application were verified, and it was judged that it was only a design change that the work could be carried out in a normal state even in the case of 400mm. ⇒ […]
New matter (Amendment Requirement) (Conclusion) Not new matter (Amendment Requirement is admitted) *The material claimed up has translucency unless it is a special manufacturing method or material. ⇒ Specific manufacturing methods and materials are not described in the specification. ⇒ Not new matter ⇒ After remand, inventive step was found at the Patent Office (after […]
The effect of “partial” priority claim on the basis of the Paris Convention (Conclusion) The effect of “partial” priority claim on the basis of the Paris Convention is found Concept of partial priority A standard was determined as to whether the failure of the (retroactive) priority claim would result in the lack of novelty and […]
(Conclusion) Invalidated by Prior Art Effect (Article 29-2 of the Patent Act) The “invention” of the prior application (Patent Act 29-2) was admitted as an “invention” of Prior Art Effect . “An invention which is ‘abstract’ or which insufficiently discloses technical content even after taking into consideration the common general knowledge of a person skilled […]
Damages (Article 102, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act) (Conclusion) Damages is calculated based on not the LED but on the TV Caluculating the amount of money based on the Article 102, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act (reasonable royalty) The royalty rate and the amount of damages were determined based on the amount of […]
Jointly owned patent rights (Conclusion) ”Otherwise agree” of Patent act Article 73(2) is admitted. ＜Article 73(2)＞”Where a patent right is jointly owned, unless otherwise agreed upon by contract, each of the joint owners of the patent right may work the patented invention without the consent of the other joint owner(s).” *”Otherwise agree” of Patent act Article 73(2) is admitted. The joint owner won. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/930/002930.pdf
Support Requirement (Conclusion) Support Requirement is Not admitted. Unclaimed composition/numerical values were considered for Support Requirement. (There are rare cases where an invention in the electric/mechanical field was judged to be a violation of Support Requirement.) “Including the invention of an antenna device in which the distance between the lower edge of the antenna element […]
New matter (Amendment Requirement) (Conclusion) Not new matter (Amendment Requirement is admitted) The interpretation of the language itself does not include the extent that it is not enforceable. ⇒Not new matter (Amendment Requirement is admitted) “The “safety confirmation execution position” refers to a position where safety confirmation can be carried out, and does not include […]
Intellectual Property High Court Decision of December 8, 2021 (Case No. 2021 [Ne] 10044―Presiding Judge Ichiro OTAKA) ◆Main text of the case 【Summary of the Judgment】 1. Regarding copyrightability of artistic works (1) The Plaintiff’s Slide is produced to be used for practical purposes as playground equipment. It is construed that even a work […]
–Intellectual High Court Case No. 2019 (Gyo-ke 10132) November 5, 2020 (Presiding Judge Tsuruoka) 1. Assertion by the Petitioner of trial for patent invalidation = The Plaintiff The Exhibit Ko 1 moving image was posted to a moving-image posting website before the PCT application and after the Present U.S. Provisional Application (during the priority […]
–Tokyo District Court Case No. 2017 (Wa) 24598 on March 26, 2020 (Presiding Judge Shibata) 1. The enablement requirement is satisfied ⇒With regard to the enablement requirement, the issue was whether it is possible to measure an angle of repose and an average particle diameter under the conditions described in the detailed description of […]
―Intellectual Property High Court Case No. 2020 (Gyo-ke) 10041 of March 25, 2021 (Presiding Judge Yoshiyuki MORI)― ◆Main text of the case 【Summary and consideration of the judgment rendered in this case】 1. Patent Claim “An antipruritic agent comprising an opiate K receptor agonist as an effective component, wherein the opiate K […]
―Tokyo District Court Case No. 2019 (Wa) 30991 of March 3, 2021 (Presiding Judge Koichi TANAKA) ◆Main text of the case 【Summary and consideration of the judgment rendered in this case】 1. An excerpt from the decision with regard to the addition of new matters (underline added) …[I]n the originally attached specification, […]
Registration of Patent Term Extension (Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices) (Conclusion) Patent Term Extension is admitted. The content of the Disposition was recognized to be different from the content of the “active ingredient” in the written approval, and the patent term extension was approved. *In another case, the same patent was judged to be noninfringing. (Tokyo […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found (Claim 2). There is no incentive to apply only a part of the secondary cited invention to the main cited invention. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)> https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_en/931/002931.pdf
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. The present invention and the cited invention have different problems to be solved. There is no motivation to change the numerical value of the cited invention, and the ease of conceivability is denied. In Japan, when the problems to be solved of the present invention and the cited […]
“Working of the patented invention for experimental or research purposes” as referred to in Article 69, paragraph (1) of the Patent Act (Conclusion) Patent infringement is denied. Conducting necessary tests for filing an application as prescribed in Article 14, paragraph (1) etc. of the Act on Securing Quality, Efficacy and Safety of Products Including Pharmaceuticals […]
Enablement requirement (Conclusion) Enablement requirement is admitted. In view of the significance of the present invention, in order to realize the constituent element G, it is necessary that force is required to bounce up the apron as its angle increases to such an extent that a general worker can feel gradual decreases of the apron […]
Novelty, Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is NOT found. *The purpose of use (how to use) was decied as the matter specifying the invention. *Novelty is found. *Inventive step is not found. “In the publicly used invention before the application date, it is not clear whether the purpose of ’making the frame partially replaceable by […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found. Since the main cited invention and the secondary cited invention have little commonality in both the problem to be solved and its method of solution, there is no motivation to apply the secondary cited invention to the main cited invention. <Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) “Electronic mail address” was admitted as a Disclosure of Identification Information of the Sender. The “electronic mail address” registered at the registration falls under “identification information of the sender” to be disclosed based on Article 4, paragraph (1) of the Act on the Limitation of Liability for Damages of Specified Telecommunications Service […]
Inventive step (Conclusion) Inventive step is found Critical significance is admitted, but it is not decisive. It is not admitted by the evidence that the problem of the present invention was known. “In Comparative Examples, all of which exceed an upper limit value of 1.5% of the heat loss of the Invention 1, the evaluation […]
Standing to be sued as a “petitioner” (Conclusion) The court determined that an intervener a trial for invalidation under Article 148, paragraph (1) of the Patent Act has a standing to be sued as a “petitioner” under Article 179, paragraph (1) of the Patent Act. A participant for a demandant in an invalidation trial before […]
Tokyo District Court Decision of April 28, 2021 (Case No. 2019 [Wa] 21993―Presiding Judge Takafumi KOKUBU) ◆Main text of the case 【Summary of the Judgment】 1. Regarding copyrightability of artistic works (1) The slide produced by the plaintiff (the “Plaintiff’s Slide”) is an aesthetic creation (a so-called work of applied art) expected to be […]
Similarity of design (Infringement case) <File wrapper estoppel> (Conclusion) It is prohibited to assert what is contradictory to what an applicant asserted during the application procedure. ⇒Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) Plaintiff, in their opinion during the application procedure, claimed that the applied design was not similar […]
(Conclusion) Defendant’s designs are not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) The essential feature of the registered design is the shape of the front wall, which is a smooth curved surface with a downward constriction near the bottom, and a configuration in which this shape is combined with a large wheel and […]
(Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) The plaintiff asserts that the heart-shaped three-dimensional shape of the case was an essential feature of the registered design because there were no false eyelashe cases as of the filing date of the registered design that had a heart shape like […]
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should NOT be found. (Applicant lost.) When “Similarity” between designs judged, it is inappropriate to consider that the applied design could be defined by taking into consideration matters other than those depicted in the drawing attached to the application or represented in the photograph, model or specimen […]
Procedural Defects (The applicant did not submit the certificate of exception to lack of novelty of design within the period specified in Article 4.) (Conclusion) The applicant’s procedural defects cannot be amended. (The applicant lost.) The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim by holding that the JPO’s disposition to dismiss the application for the commencement […]
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s OLD design is Similar to the registered design. However, Defendant’s NEW design is NOT Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner win regarding Defendant’s old design.) In the transaction of a measurement-pointindication plate, the consumer considers not only the state of the display at the time of […]
Procedural Defects (Copy is NOT allowed of a priority certificate that must be submitted in the procedure for claiming priority under the Paris Convention.) Cf. <Tokyo District Court> 2009 (Gyo-U) 597 (Conclusion) The applicant’s procedural defects cannot be amended. (The applicant lost.) The priority certificate required to be filed in proceedings to claim priority under […]
Procedural Defects (Copy is NOT allowed of a priority certificate that must be submitted in the procedure for claiming priority under the Paris Convention.) Cf. <Tokyo District Court> 2009 (Gyo-U) 540 (Conclusion) The applicant’s procedural defects cannot be amended. (The applicant lost.) The priority certificate required to be filed in proceedings to claim priority […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2010 (Wa) 4770 (December 16, 2010) “Long-handled scissors” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) The essential features of the registered design are the “shape of the blade part as well as the ratio of the length of the fixed coupling part or the handle part in the entire length”. The design of the Defendant’s Design is identical […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2010 (Ne) 10014 (March 28, 2011) “Covers for underground structure (manhole)” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s designs are not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) In judging whether designs are similar or dissimilar, it is necessary to observe the design as a whole. In this case, it is necessary to grasp the part of the design that is most likely to […]
＜Osaka District Court＞2010 (Wa) 9966 (September 15, 2011) “Manicure nail file” Case
Damages caluculation (Article 39(1)) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) Article 39(1) of the Design Act (Lost profits based on a right holder’s profit) (i) Price of the defendant’s product was much cheaper than the plaintiff’s product. (plaintiff’s product: 500 yen, defendant’s product: 100 yen) (2) Contribution […]
―Osaka District Court Case No. 2019 (Wa) 3273 of March 25, 2021 (Presiding Judge Masaki SUGIURA) ◆Main Text of the case 1. Patent Claim “A learning implement…includes…a picture selection means for selecting picture data of one set of pictures from picture data of a plurality of sets of pictures recoded on the picture recording […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2011 (Gyo-Ke) 10239 (December 15, 2011) “Release paper for printing” Case
Easiness of Creation (Article 3(2) of the Design Act) (Conclusion) A person ordinarily skilled in the art could have easily created based on the cited design. (Applicant lost.) Article 3(2) of the Design Act questions the novelty and/or originality of the conception of the design from the standpoint of a person ordinarily skilled in the […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2011 (Gyo-Ke) 10240 (December 15, 2011) “Release paper for printing” Case
Easiness of Creation (Article 3(2) of the Design Act) (Conclusion) A person ordinarily skilled in the art could have easily created based on the cited design. (Applicant lost.) Article 3(2) of the Design Act questions the novelty and/or originality of the conception of the design from the standpoint of a person ordinarily skilled in the […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2010 (Wa) 13746 (December 15, 2011) “Water cleaner” Case
Damages caluculation (Article 39(2) and Article 39(3)) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) *The design of Defendant’s Water cleaner and the resistered design are identical, and there was no dispute. Article 39(2) of the Design Act (Lost profits based on an infringer’s profit) Since the product is […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2011 (Wa) 9476 (May 24, 2012) “Angle adjuster” Case (Partial Design)
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design 2-1 and 2-2 are Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner won.) / Defendant’s design 2-3 is NOT Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) (1) Defendant’s Angle adjuster 2-1 is similar. (2) Defendant’s Angle adjuster 2-2 is similar. (The excised colored red portion […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2010 (Wa) 805 (March 15, 2012) “Tile carpet” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner won.) Carpet tile is an interior product that is laid on the floor for interior decoration. For this reason, in the course of transactions, differences in patterns, textures, colors, etc., are emphasized in catalogs, etc., by showing small […]
＜Osaka District Court＞ 2011 (Wa) 9600 (June 21, 2012) “Portable thermos” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) ⇒Appeal Court<Osaka High Court> 2012 (Ne) 2216 judged the same. The plaintiff asserts that the fact that the defendant’s design has almost no unevenness on the sides does not make the two designs completely different […]
＜IP High Court＞ 2012 (Gyo-ke) 10042 (July 18, 2012) “Tires for two-wheeled vehicles” Case
Novelty (related to Prior designs) (Conclusion) Novelty should be found. (Applicant won.) The three grooves in the applied design have straight edges, and the width of the grooves tapers toward the ends. This gives the viewer an aesthetic impression that the grooves are composed of thin straight lines with a sharp point at one end, […]
＜Tokyo District Court＞ 2011 (Wa) 10705 (June 28, 2012) “Ventilation opening” Case
Similarity of design (Infringement case) (Conclusion) Defendant’s design is not Similar to the registered design. (Design right owner lost.) All of the essential parts, i.e., (1) the ratio of the rattle part to the water reservoir part is approximately 7 to 3 in the resistered design, whereas it is approximately 8 to 2 in the […]