Patent Case Law and Intellectual Property Practice Blog

日本語版 / Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Categories: Patents Topics: Damages First published on this website: 2026-11-14 Display and classification checked: 2026-11-15 <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 featu

日本語版 / Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Categories: Patents Topics: Damages First published on this website: 2026-11-14 Display and classification checked: 2026-11-15 <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) Adv

日本語版 / Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Categories: Patents Topics: Damages First published on this website: 2026-11-14 Display and classification checked: 2026-11-15 <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

日本語版 / Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Categories: Patents Topics: Employee inventions, Contracts First published on this website: 2026-11-14 Display and classification checked: 2026-11-15 An agreement between a company and a former employee under which ‘all claims, including the right to claim reasonable remuneration, are extinguished’ in exchange for JPY 300,000 was held valid in light of the negotiation history. ⇒ Claim dismissed The defenda

日本語版 / Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Categories: Patents Topics: Support requirement First published on this website: 2026-11-14 Display and classification checked: 2026-11-15 Invalidation petitioner: Aichi Steel Patentee: MagneDesign (Extract from the court's reasoning) ‘Whether an effect is distinguishable from prior technology in a natural-scientific sense ... is unrelated to patentability requirements ... a patent is granted if the techn

日本語版 / Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Categories: Patents Topics: Inventive step, Numerical limitations and parameters First published on this website: 2026-11-14 Display and classification checked: 2026-11-15 *In this case, obviousness was found in light of, among other matters, the overlap with the numerical range of the cited invention. (Difference as described in the judgment and extract from the court’s reasoning) 　The peak temperature of

日本語版 / Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Categories: Patents Topics: Clarity, Inventive step First published on this website: 2026-11-14 Display and classification checked: 2026-11-15 <Clarity requirement> * Products not satisfying the claimed effect ‘configured to be capable of causing paper tearing’ are excluded from the invention. ⇒ Clarity upheld even though the claims do not specify the frequency or conditions of occurrence of ‘paper tearing

日本語版 / Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Categories: Patents Topics: Added matter First published on this website: 2026-11-14 Display and classification checked: 2026-11-15 An amendment was made on the basis of the description of the prior art. ⇒ (1) It does not disclose that the configuration described under [Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention] has the prior-art configuration, and (2) there is no description suggesting that it presupposes

日本語版 / Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Categories: Patents Topics: Inventive step, Design choices First published on this website: 2026-11-14 Display and classification checked: 2026-11-15 The specification does not describe the technical significance of the stepped portion extending ‘substantially horizontally.’ Whether the stepped portion extends ‘substantially horizontally’ or ‘slightly downward’ does not change the effects produced by the in

日本語版 / Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Categories: Patents Topics: Damages First published on this website: 2026-11-14 Display and classification checked: 2026-11-15 <Damages> Rebuttal of the presumption under Article 102(2): 98% rebutted (Invention 2), 85% rebutted (Invention 3) JPY 5.5 billion claimed; approximately JPY 2.78 billion awarded <Grounds for rebutting the presumption>　 (1) Invention II made only a slight contribution, while Inven