Patent Case Law and Intellectual Property Practice Blog

* The geographic scope of the non-compete provision was too broad, rendering it invalid. ⇒ No narrowing construction, in view of its deterrent effect. (Preparatory acts during employment violated ancillary obligations under the employment contract, but only a small damages award was granted.)

Notifying YouTube of copyright infringement, invasion of privacy and defamation through its notification forms regarding uploaded videos was held not to constitute a tort interfering with expressive activity. 1. Google carefully reviews takedown requests, sometimes requesting additional information or rejecting requests. Videos are therefore not removed unconditionally.

1. Identification of the essential portion The container shape (a rounded rectangle) and lid configuration already existed and were not treated as distinctive innovations (essential portions). Because the product attaches to a wall, consumers focus on the rear magnetic part to see whether it attaches securely.

= Tokyo District Court, Reiwa 6 (Wa) 70083 * A separate action claimed consumption-tax-equivalent amounts not claimed in the earlier proceedings, but was dismissed as inadmissible for violating good faith.

* Inventive step denied for a numerically limited invention. (The numerical range in the primary reference was encompassed by the claimed numerical range.)

Selecting a particular species without contesting the examiner's definition or limitation of the species creates a risk that non-elected species will be regarded as excluded from the claim scope. ⇒ As claim 73 was withdrawn without contesting the examiner's characterization, its features were held to have been excluded.

US design patent infringement assessment originates in the ordinary observer test established by the Supreme Court's 1871 Gorham judgment. From the 1984 Litton Systems judgment onward, the CAFC introduced the point of novelty test alongside it. This required the accused design to possess the novel design features (points of novelty) distinguishing the patented design from prior designs.

An implied licence to use the trademarks was found, based on circumstances including the appellant's failure to raise objections for approximately 18 years to the appellee's unauthorized use of the trademarks (including “SUPER JET BUBBLE”). The appellant's representative and the appellee had cooperated in conducting related business for many years.

1. Definitions of use in Japan and Germany Japan's Patent Act uses the same term, use, for both product inventions (Article 2(3)(i)) and method inventions (item (ii)). German patent law, by contrast, strictly distinguishes its terminology according to the subject matter.

Five points for assessing non-trademark use are organized. <Practical steps to avoid conflict> ① Step 1: Consider descriptiveness