[U.S./Trademark] Supreme Court No. 12-761, POM v. COCA-COLA (June 12, 2014)
日本語原文 / Japanese original Article information Article type: Case note Category: United States, Trademarks Topics: — First published on this website: 2026-11-01 Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026 Originally published on Ameblo: 2024-07-08 (Japan time). Full English translation. https://ameblo.jp/hideki-takaishi/entry-12859099740.html [U.S./Trademark] Supreme Court No. 12-761, POM v. COCA-COLA (June 12, 2014) A false-advertising action under the Lanham Act is
[US patents] CAFC, January 2025 — Honeywell v. 3G Licensing
日本語版 Article information Article type: Case note Category: United States Topics: Inventive step, Motivation and teaching away First published on this site: 2026-10-11 Display/classification checked: 2026-10-11 [US patents] CAFC, January 2025 — Honeywell v. 3G Licensing When assessing obviousness, the motivation to modify the primary cited invention need not be identical to the motivation the patentee had in the past. When establishing obviousness, a particular combination wit
[United States] CAFC, August 2, 2023 — Realtime Data v. Array Network
日本語版 Article information Article type: Case note Category: United States Topics: Patent eligibility First published on this site: 2026-10-10 Display/classification checked: 2026-10-10 [United States] CAFC, August 2, 2023 — Realtime Data v. Array Network [Alice, step one] → Directed to an abstract idea The claims do not clearly define a particular technology for performing data compression; they merely state results abstractly. [Alice, step two] → No inventive concept The spec
[United States] Incyte v. Sun Pharm (Federal Circuit, May 2025)
Japanese version: https://www.takaishihideki.com/single-post/linkedin-7513747861986177024-ja Article information Article type: Case note Categories: United States Issues: Injunctions Published on website: 2026-10-08 Display/classification checked: 2026-10-10 [United States] Incyte v. Sun Pharm (Federal Circuit, May 2025) A preliminary injunction is available where irreparable harm will be suffered. Even economic harm may qualify if it cannot readily be compensated as quantifi
[United States] HOOP v. HOOP (Fed. Cir., 279 F.3d 1004) (2002)
日本語版 Article information Article type: Case note Categories: United States Topics: Creators and inventors / AI and intellectual property First published on this website: 2026-10-07 Display and classification checked: 2026-10-07 [United States] HOOP v. HOOP (Fed. Cir., 279 F.3d 1004) (2002) Determining inventorship (design authorship) for U.S. design patents ⇒ The later design is similar to the earlier design and merely improves and completes it; it therefore is not a separate
[Article / United States] Determining inventorship (design authorship) for U.S. design patents (Tsuyoshi Fujimoto, AIPPI (2025), Vol. 70, No. 10)
日本語版 Article information Article type: Publication review Categories: United States Topics: Creators and inventors / AI and intellectual property First published on this website: 2026-10-07 Display and classification checked: 2026-10-07 [Article / United States] Determining inventorship (design authorship) for U.S. design patents (Tsuyoshi Fujimoto, AIPPI (2025), Vol. 70, No. 10) USPTO guidance α: A design created by a natural person is input into AI. ⇒ If the AI output is si
[United States] FMC v. Sharada (CAFC, August 1, 2025)
日本語版 Article information Article type: Case note Categories: United States Topics: Claim interpretation / Added matter First published on this website: 2026-10-07 Display and classification checked: 2026-10-07 [United States] FMC v. Sharada (CAFC, August 1, 2025) During prosecution, a provisional application was first filed containing several teachings that the disclosed compositions were stable. In one of the subsequent nonprovisional applications, all references to stabilit
[United States] LAB v. Qiagen (CAFC, August 13, 2025)
日本語版 Article information Article type: Case note Categories: United States Topics: Claim interpretation / Doctrine of equivalents First published on this website: 2026-10-07 Display and classification checked: 2026-10-07 [United States] LAB v. Qiagen (CAFC, August 13, 2025) When claim language differs within a claim depending on whether a modifier is included, the different wording is understood to have been chosen deliberately. Where a claim contains both “partially matching
[United States] In re Butler (CAFC, September 17, 2025)
日本語版: https://www.takaishihideki.com/single-post/linkedin-7511585179316969472-ja Article information Content type: Case note Categories: United States Issues: Disclaimer claims / Written description First published on this site: 2026-10-03 Display and classification checked: 2026-10-03 [United States] In re Butler (CAFC, September 17, 2025) To support a negative limitation (a disclaimer) in a claim, the specification needs to explain, in some form, a reason for excluding the
<IP Practice Online> “The forefront of standard-essential patents (SEPs): Practice in light of global litigation trends” (Akiko Araki, Attorney at Law, Patent Attorney and California Attorney)
日本語版: https://www.takaishihideki.com/single-post/linkedin-7511585401640255488-ja Article information Content type: Lectures and videos Categories: United States / China / Europe Issues: Standard-essential patents / FRAND / Injunctions / International jurisdiction First published on this site: 2026-10-03 Display and classification checked: 2026-10-03 <IP Practice Online> “The forefront of standard-essential patents (SEPs): Practice in light of global litigation trends” (Akiko
