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 was outside the appropriate timing in defending the invalidity of the lack of novelty with Otsu-14 invention as the main reference.
⇒ Lack of novelty (the original judgement was overturned.)
(Three months before, the same IP High Court Division 2 decided lack of novelty. <2019(Gyo-ke)10109>)
<Writer: Hideki Takaishi (Attorney-at-law licensed in Japan and California)>