Patent Case Law and Intellectual Property Practice Blog

日本語版を読む / Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Category: Patents Topics: Inventive step, Motivation and teaching away, Patent corrections First published on this website: October 2, 2026 Case number (as stated in the source): Reiwa 5 (Gyo-Ke) 10061 Display and classification checked: October 2, 2026 (not a re-review of the legal analysis) IP High Court, Reiwa 5 (Gyo-Ke) 10061 [Combustor and boiler] <Presiding Judge Miyasaka> * Inventive step denied (so

日本語版を読む / Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Category: Patents Topics: Inventive step, Motivation and teaching away, Patent corrections First published on this website: October 2, 2026 Case number (as stated in the source): Reiwa 5 (Gyo-Ke) 10084 Display and classification checked: October 2, 2026 (not a re-review of the legal analysis) IP High Court, Reiwa 5 (Gyo-Ke) 10084 [Electric impact fastening tool] <Judge Hibiki Shimizu> * No inventive step.

日本語版を読む / Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Category: Patents Topics: Inventive step, Motivation and teaching away, Claim interpretation, Patent corrections First published on this website: October 2, 2026 Case number (as stated in the source): Tokyo District Court, Reiwa 1 (Wa) 32779 Display and classification checked: October 2, 2026 (not a re-review of the legal analysis) Tokyo District Court, Reiwa 1 (Wa) 32779 [Clothing] <Presiding Judge Kokubu

From the description in Reference 2, the baffle cell itself obstructs and redirects fluid flow, corresponding to the baffle of the amended invention at issue. The baffle cell also includes a solid portion (solid domain) and blocks the flow path, so it can be called a solid wall.

Explore existing articles on inventive step, design choices, motivation and teaching away. The collection includes case notes, reviews of publications and lecture materials. See each article for its discussion and sources.

[Summary; case discussions omitted] 1. Motivation to combine and design choice are independent. Weak correlation with problem-solving favors design choice. 2. Cited-invention eligibility: No comment.

[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).

[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?)

[Passenger conveyor] (Presiding Judge Nakadaira) 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."