Patent Case Law and Intellectual Property Practice Blog

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む Case No. 2025 (Gyo-ke) 10027 [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?) (Excerpts from the judgment — translated) Given that the configuration of the invention in Exhibit Ko 3, namely the arrangement of arm support projections 16 and 17 outside the first cam portion

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) 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

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.

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou/toushin/shingikai/new_shinsakijyun03_gijiyousi.htm Industrial Structure Council, Intellectual Property Committee, Patent System Subcommittee Summary of the Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the Working Group on the Patent Examination Standards Expert Committee The issues are as follows. How to Consider the Various Viewpoints Concerning Motivation State in the Examination Guidelines that motivation to apply a s

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む It was published in the March 2014 issue of Patent. As sub-leader, I compiled the third category. Please refer to it to check the trends in recent court decisions concerning the assessment of inventive step. English translation of the Japanese article.