Patent Case Law and Intellectual Property Practice Blog

Failure to meet the support requirement (+ lack of inventive step) “Lactococcus garvieae of a serotype that is neither KG− nor KG+” also includes type III Lactococcus garvieae, observed from 2021 onward. The specification contains no disclosure whatsoever of a vaccine preparation against streptococcosis caused by type III bacteria, and an inactivated type III vaccine is ineffective against streptococcosis caused by type II bacteria.

The criteria for finding a “design choice,” particularly when inventive step can be denied without direct evidence (a secondary reference), were studied through device/system cases. Cases recognizing design choices without evidence fall into three types:

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.

[Women's clothing] (Presiding Judge Moritomi) *Inventive step recognized.

[Siphonic rain gutter system] (Presiding Judge Nakajima) *Inventive step recognized. The inventions in Exhibits Otsu A25 and Otsu A26 lack motivation for combination because their technical approaches are opposites (the former generates turbulence; the latter prevents it).

(Hideki Takaishi, Nakamura & Partners) [Some case introductions omitted] 1. Central message of the video

[Cross-sectional image detection apparatus] (Presiding Judge Hasegawa) *Inventive step denied

[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?)

[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.