IP High Court, 2024 (Ne) 10010 — Women’s Clothing: A Late Invalidity Defense (Nakadaira)
* A new invalidity defense raised in the statement of reasons for appeal was considered late. (This would leave virtually no room to make any new argument beginning at the appellate stage….) (Excerpts from the decision) The appellant’s assertion of new grounds for invalidity in t
Article — Scope of Review in Patent Trial-Decision Revocation Actions: New Arguments on Well-Known Technology
The Supreme Court’s January 24, 1980 judgment in the “Food Packaging Container” case held that, because judges do not possess knowledge equivalent to that of a person skilled in the art, new allegations and proof of publicly known technology are permissible to establish the commo
JPO Status Report 2025
The number of patent applications in Japan is recovering: 306,855 applications. Appeals against examiners’ decisions of refusal: 20,000. Requests for invalidation trials doubled to 186 (one person filed more than 50). Operation of suspension of examination of divisional applicati
IP High Court, 2024 (Ra) 10003 — Restricting Access to Settlement Terms and Litigation Records
Immediate appeal against a decision dismissing an application to restrict inspection and similar access. A settlement including a nondisclosure clause was reached in patent infringement litigation. ⇒ The defendant applied to restrict inspection of the settlement terms and portion
Osaka District Court, 1998 (Wa) 12899 — Electric Pipe Bending Apparatus
* The defendant simultaneously sold an “electric straight-pipe bender,” a “bender shoe,” and a “bender guide.” Assembling the three infringed the patent. ⇒ Held to constitute direct infringement!! * The estoppel objection under the fifth requirement was rejected, and equivalence
IP High Court, 2023 (Gyo-Ke) 10011 — Device for Remote Operation of a Mobile Terminal (Miyasaka)
Claim: “… a display unit displaying images (excluding images captured by a camera) …” “In the cited invention, … capturing images with a camera is not an essential feature. …” ⇒ Inventive step: denied. (The tactic of excluding an essential feature of the cited invention through a
IP High Court Grand Panel, 2023 (Ne) 10040 — Composition for Breast Augmentation
Unlike the first-instance judgment, the court found that the appellee had prepared and administered a drug containing components ①, ②, and ③ simultaneously. ⇒ Claim limitations satisfied: the patentee won on reversal. * The closely watched issue of whether separate administration
Two Judgments Specifying the End Date of an Injunction: Both Until Patent Expiration
⇒ In both, the injunction runs until the patent’s expiration date (these are not partial claims). * Could this reduce the value of the subject matter of the action and save filing-stamp fees!? IP High Court, 2014 (Ne) 10082 — Method for Producing 4H-Type Single-Crystal Silicon Ca
Tokyo District Court, 2024 (Yo) 30028 — Age-Related Macular Degeneration (Kokubu, Civil Division 29)
(Issued around the same time as Tokyo District Court, 2024 (Yo) 30029 (Nakashima, Civil Division 40).) ⇒ Without deciding whether there was patent infringement, the court, in light of the circumstances, began with “negation of unlawfulness as a lawful act.” It adopted a framework
IP High Court, 2022 (Gyo-Ke) 10118 — Program: A Disclaimer Claim and Inventive Step (Honda)
Claim: “… a control device … wherein the device to be controlled has a speaker but is not a television …” No particular technical significance was found in the fact that the device controlled in the cited invention was a television. ⇒ Inventive step: denied. (The tactic of exclud
