Patent Case Law and Intellectual Property Practice Blog

日本語版 / Japanese version <Damages> Rebuttal of the presumption under Patent Act, Article 102(2): Invention 1, 75%; Invention 2, 95% (1) In the defendant's equipment, sorting categories vary as appropriate according to the accumulation state, reducing overflow compared with a configuration without this feature. (2) Profits from equipment other than the inventions are also included. (3) The respective inventions were not tender requirements. (Extract from the court's reason

日本語版 / Japanese version The Supreme Court’s North Korean Films judgment (December 8, 2011) concerned use of films not protected under the Copyright Act. The article reports that, among the subsequent decisions it examines, it found no case recognizing general tort liability where protection under copyright, unfair-competition law, or design rights was denied. https://jpaa-patent.info/patent/viewPdf/4166 Originally published: 2023-11-26 Original article: https://ameblo.jp/hi

日本語版 / Japanese version ‘Because shoe leather is flexible, it is impossible ... to reproduce from leather shoes on the market a last of exactly the same shape and dimensions as that used to manufacture the shoes and obtain its design information.’ + No circumstances allowing acquisition without particular effort ⇒ The information was not publicly known 086520_hanrei.pdf (courts.go.jp) Originally published: 2023-11-29 Original article: https://ameblo.jp/hideki-takaishi/entry

日本語版 / Japanese version For the claim language “a pH of 13 or higher,” the district court construed the “pH of 13” component, using rounding, to encompass 12.5–13.4. The words “or higher” remained part of the claim; 13.4 was not an upper limit. The district court had not addressed the extrinsic evidence, including textbooks. ⇒ The CAFC vacated the claim construction and the infringement judgment and remanded for consideration of the extrinsic evidence and its bearing on how

日本語版 / Japanese version Whether grounds for rejection exist for a design-registration application is a matter the examiner must determine ex officio and is not subject to the binding effect of admissions. In this case, the action to rescind the JPO decision concerned whether a right should be granted, and the applicant’s change of position did not unfairly harm the interests of the administrative agency as defendant. The court therefore held that estoppel did not bar the ar

日本語版 / Japanese version ‘Post-sale confusion’ The article argues that item (i) applies if confusion among persons other than the (direct) purchaser may unreasonably influence future choices of goods or services. https://jpaa-patent.info/patent/viewPdf/4191 Originally published: 2023-11-28 Original article: https://ameblo.jp/hideki-takaishi/entry-12830400515.html

日本語版 / Japanese version Infringement complaints to platform operators such as Amazon Tokyo District Court, 2016 (Wa) 12829 [CERAKOTE / complaint to Facebook] ⇒ Expression of a subjective perception, not notification of a fact. IP High Court, 2018 (Ne) 10068 [Jolen Creme Bleach] (first instance: Tokyo District Court, 2016 (Wa) 15812) is a separate related case. 2018 (Wa) 22428 ⇒ Violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act * Among the recent decisions examined in t

日本語版 / Japanese version <Damages> Patent Act, Article 102(2): 90% reduction for non-contribution (10% contribution); approximately JPY 800 million awarded <Contribution rate> (1) Significance of the invention (appearance of grilled rice cakes and suppression of eruption caused by sudden swelling) (2) Advertising on the exterior packaging of the defendant's products: displaying the ‘slits made in the cut rice cakes’ (3) The defendant's securities reports, etc. describe im

日本語版 / Japanese version <Damages> Rebuttal of the presumption under Article 102(2): 15% rebutted because of competing products * ‘Responding to individual customer requests,’ ‘securing inventory,’ ‘clearly stating maintenance-service details on the website,’ etc. do not constitute exceptional sales efforts sufficient to rebut the presumption under Article 102(2)!! (Extract from the court's reasoning) <Grounds for rebuttal> 　On the alleged absence or weakness of the custo

日本語版 / Japanese version The plaintiff had tacitly permitted the defendant's submission of a written rebuttal. ⇒ In an ongoing contractual relationship, this cannot be assessed as a material contractual breach sufficient to destroy the relationship of trust. ⇒ In the circumstances of this case, exercising the right to terminate by invoking a violation of some contractual provisions constitutes an abuse of the right to terminate. https://www.courts.go.jp/assets/hanrei/hanre