IP High Court, Case No. 2024 (Gyo-ke) 10077
[System for providing massage-related services] (Presiding Judge Nakadaira) It is appropriate to interpret "program code" as meaning "instructions, data, etc. created using an artificial language for the purpose of having a computer interpret or execute them"; it is not limited to source code.
IP High Court, Case No. 2025 (Gyo-ke) 10037
[Cross-sectional image detection apparatus] (Presiding Judge Hasegawa) *Inventive step denied
[Claim for remuneration for an employee invention]
Tokyo District Court, Case No. 2023 (Wa) 70685 (Presiding Judge Sugiura) The three perspectives prescribed by Article 35(4) of the Patent Act as amended in 2004:
IP High Court, Case No. 2025 (Gyo-ke) 10027
[Hinge] (Presiding Judge Hasegawa) *Inventive step recognized A configuration for solving the problem of the primary cited invention cannot be changed without a particular reason. (What constitutes a particular reason?)
Osaka District Court, Case No. 2024 (Wa) 2606
[Electric coffee maker] (Presiding Judge Matsuami) Invention 1 at issue has a configuration in which the heater is turned off when the water temperature inside the boiler reaches 90–100°C, and steam pressure caused by boiling is not generated.
Tokyo District Court, Case No. 2024 (Wa) 70225
[Unsecured funding system for credit card merchants through the purchase of undetermined future credit receivables] (Presiding Judge Takahashi) ● Meaning of "credit card company" (element A)
IP High Court, Case No. 2025 (Ne) 10049
[Portable information communication device] (Presiding Judge Hasegawa) = Cases No. 2025 (Ne) 10051, 2025 (Ne) 10047, 2025 (Ne) 10040, Tokyo District Court No. 2022 (Wa) 70131, etc.
IP High Court, Case No. 2025 (Gyo-ke) 10049
[Passenger conveyor] (Presiding Judge Nakadaira) The plaintiff argued that "the cited invention … has already solved the problem by means for solving the problem that differ from those of the claimed invention." However, this judgment held that "whether it has already been solved by another, different means of solution is unrelated to the existence of motivation."
IP High Court, Case No. 2025 (Gyo-ke) 10054
[Use of DPPIV inhibitors] (Presiding Judge Hasegawa) Exhibit Ko 1 stated that "in the case of the oral route, the range is preferably 1–100 mg, administered 1–4 times per day." Further, in light of common general knowledge:
IP High Court, Case No. 2025 (Gyo-ke) 10076
[Vehicle guidance system] (Presiding Judge Masuda) *Divisional requirements satisfied (no addition of new matter)