Patent Case Law and Intellectual Property Practice Blog

日本語原文 / Japanese original Article information Article type: Lectures and videos Category: United States Topics: Claim interpretation, Patent eligibility First published on this website: 2026-11-01 Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026 Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-12-09 (Japan time). Full English translation. https://ameblo.jp/hideki-takaishi/entry-12949482771.html [IP Practice Online] Explanation of Patent Eligibility Issues in the United States and Pra

日本語原文 / Japanese original Article information Article type: Case note Category: United States Topics: Claim interpretation First published on this website: 2026-11-01 Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026 Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-04-03 (Japan time). Full English translation. https://ameblo.jp/hideki-takaishi/entry-12892403149.html [U.S. Patents] Claim Differentiation = 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) 2024.10　NexStep v. Comcast Claims 1 and 4 are not construed

日本語原文 / Japanese original Article information Article type: Case note Category: United States Topics: Claim interpretation First published on this website: 2026-11-01 Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026 Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-04-04 (Japan time). Full English translation. https://ameblo.jp/hideki-takaishi/entry-12892528928.html [U.S. Patents] UTTO v. Metrotech (October 2024, CAFC) Plural claim language is presumed to mean more than one, but the

① ★ “Suppressing contact with ozone at 0.1 ppm or less” in Claim Limitation 1C need only be achieved by some method. ⇒ Satisfied. ② ★ Novelty / inventive step affirmed on the basis that the purpose differs from the prior art. * If “suppressing contact with ozone at 0.1 ppm or les

* The defendant simultaneously sold an “electric straight-pipe bender,” a “bender shoe,” and a “bender guide.” Assembling the three infringed the patent. ⇒ Held to constitute direct infringement!! * The estoppel objection under the fifth requirement was rejected, and equivalence

Unlike the first-instance judgment, the court found that the appellee had prepared and administered a drug containing components ①, ②, and ③ simultaneously. ⇒ Claim limitations satisfied: the patentee won on reversal. * The closely watched issue of whether separate administration

★ Application for a provisional injunction based on violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act: a case denying patent infringement by finding that the medical-use invention was not worked under an “exclusively” standard and that, on the patentee’s argument that a certain

Numerical rounding and the doctrine of equivalents The issue was whether the appellee’s product, with a molecular weight of 699.91848, satisfied the numerical limitation of a molecular weight of “700 or more.” ⇒ Ultimately, because the applicant had “deliberately” drawn the line

“The means for solving the problem … ‘oxygen supply means for supplying micro-nanobubbles containing oxygen into the second containment tank,’ unlike the supply means for the first containment tank, … does not include supply means that supplies micro-nanobubbles to which ozone ha

日本語版 Article information Article type: Case note Category: Patents Topics: Claim interpretation First published on this site: 2026-10-10 Display/classification checked: 2026-10-10 Intellectual Property High Court (Grand Panel), Reiwa 5 (Ne) No. 10040 — Composition for promoting an increase in subcutaneous adipose tissue (Judge Honda) *Where consideration is received, the act generally does not constitute experimentation or research under Article 69(1) of the Patent Act. Unlik