Patent Case Law and Intellectual Property Practice Blog

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む 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. A patent that had previously prevailed in patent infringement litigation against Sharp and SoftBank was held invalid on the basis of a different primary reference. The primary reference was found to be the same as the patent at issue in a

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む Case No. 2025 (Gyo-ke) 10049 [Passenger conveyor] (Presiding Judge Nakahira) 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." (The quotations above are translations.) ⇒ Invent

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む 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: "A person skilled in the art who encounters the Exhibit Ko 1 publication is found to use the lower limits of the above numerical ranges (1 mg, administered once daily) as a reference for the

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む Case No. 2025 (Gyo-ke) 10076 [Vehicle guidance system] (Presiding Judge Masuda) *Divisional requirements satisfied (no addition of new matter) (Excerpts from the judgment — translated) It should be said that there is no basis for prohibiting consideration of the common general knowledge of a person skilled in the art when interpreting the claims in identifying the gist of an invention. Further, even if there are examples in which a tollboot

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む Case No. 2025 (Gyo-ke) 10051 [Pharmaceutical product] (Koa v. Toa) (Presiding Judge Masuda) *Inventive step denied Using a container made of polyolefin resin (PE, PP) for ripasudil eye drops is a design matter based on well-known technology and is readily conceivable. Regarding "0.4 g as the free form per 100 mL of the aqueous composition" (Translation of the quoted judgment) "The concentration of the active ingredient in eye drops is a des

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む Tokyo District Court, Case No. 2024 (Wa) 70478 [Monitoring system] (Presiding Judge Takahashi) Inventive step denied, with "GPS BoT," the plaintiff's own publicly worked invention, as the primary reference. (Translation of the quoted judgment) "The invention in Exhibit Otsu 38 (GPS BoT) is one in which a terminal carried by a person being monitored transmits location information at timings corresponding to interval information and transmits

An English translation of Hideki Takaishi's 2015 commentary on the Supreme Court's PBP judgments and consistent claim construction.

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む Scope: Articles published in January 2026 by attorney Hideki Takaishi (Nakamura & Partners) Number of items included: 34 List page: https://www.nakapat.gr.jp/ja/legal_updates_jp/ <Highlights of This Month> Key Points in the January 2026 Intellectual Property and Legal Affairs Update This month’s legal update addresses 34 court decisions and commentaries spanning a broad range of intellectual-property practice, including chains of divisional

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む Scope: Articles published in February 2026 by Attorney Hideki Takaishi (Nakamura & Partners) Number of Articles Included: 34 Index Page: https://www.nakapat.gr.jp/ja/legal_updates_jp/ <Highlights of the Month> Key Points in the February 2026 Intellectual Property and Legal Affairs Update This month's legal update addresses 34 judicial decisions and commentaries across a broad range of intellectual property practice, from claim construction,

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む I have uploaded the materials to another page, so please refer to them. A “qualitatively different effect” is not the “effect” itself..., English translation of the Japanese article.