(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 because the “soybean hypocotyl extract” requires a high cost and another nutrient for fermentation by equol-producing bacteria.
In light of these facts, it is reasonable to construe that the fermented product produced from such “soybean hypocotyl extract” as a raw material for fermentation does not fall under the “fermented soybean hypocotyl product” of each of the present inventions.
<Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)>