Patent Case Law and Intellectual Property Practice Blog

The dividing line for a “design choice” Whether the configuration constituting the difference correlates with the “problem addressed by the invention,” and whether its technical significance is disclosed in the specification, is the decisive boundary separating obviousness from non-obviousness.

Under what conditions does a claim that numerically limits only the impurity content of a known substance satisfy “inventive step” and the “support requirement”? 1. Inventive step: The “limits” of conventional methods are key Reducing impurities itself is often considered an “obvious problem.” Inventive step therefore depends on whether the value is achievable by extending conventional methods.

Case law indicates that overturning creator status through oral testimony alone is extremely difficult; objective evidence such as drawings and daily work reports is indispensable.

(Presiding Judge Nakajima) [Issue 1] No infringement of the right of public transmission The subtitle translator undertook the translation work on an "all rights clear" basis.

1. Four requirements for a whole design and a partial design to be found similar (Design Examination Guidelines) (1) Common use and function: The uses and functions of the articles, etc. of both designs must be identical or similar. (2) Correspondence between the part and the whole: The use and function of the whole design and those of the “claimed part” of the partial design must be identical or similar.

1. Background to the amendment Previous problem: Identifying and proving every disclosure within 30 days of filing was difficult. Cases occurred in which a slight omission of proof led to rejection based on the applicant’s own disclosed design. Outline of the amendment: Proof of one disclosure on the earliest day dispenses with proof of later disclosures of identical or similar designs.

The IP High Court reversed the Osaka District Court’s treatment of adding a patent claim as an “amendment of the action” (Code of Civil Procedure, Article 143), holding that it was “submission of a means of attack or defense” (Article 157). The reason lies in the Patent Act’s basic structure of granting one patent right per patent application.

1. Points to note when designating the United States Design patent practice: In the United States, designs are protected under patent law, so claim clarity is given extremely high importance. If the original drawings are unclear, an amendment adding shading later carries a high risk of being regarded as adding new matter.

1. Personality rights and “voiceprint rights” Under current law, portrait rights are recognized on the basis of the right to pursue happiness under Article 13 of the Constitution. 2. Publicity rights

While retaining traditional territoriality (the principle that a patent’s effect is confined to the territory of that country), the article proposes “flexible application” to ensure the effectiveness of patent rights. In determining whether an act of working was performed in Japan, it emphasizes not only the actor’s location but also the “place where the act’s result occurs.”