Patent Case Law and Intellectual Property Practice Blog

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

★ 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

日本語版 Article information Article type: Reports and activities Category: Patents Topics: Novelty, Added matter, Examination and appeal practice First published on this site: 2026-10-11 Display/classification checked: 2026-10-11 Trial and Appeal Practitioners Study Group Report 2024 — Case 2 (Chemistry 1) [Matters equivalent to disclosure in the earlier application’s specification; substantial identity] IP High Court, Heisei 26 (Gyo-Ke) No. 10097 — Flat nonaqueous-electrolyte s

Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Classification: Patents Issues: Claim interpretation; Novelty First published on this site: 2026-10-03 Court: Tokyo District Court Case number: Reiwa 5 (Wa) 70449 Display/classification checked: 2026-10-03 Tokyo District Court, Reiwa 5 (Wa) 70449 [Fastening hardware] <Presiding Judge Takahashi> The claim wording “for inducing deformation when an excessive load acts” does not limit the invention's configuration. “It

1. A distinctive feature of the US design system: The article's use is disregarded US design law is part of patent law (35 U.S.C. §171), and patent principles apply. Its most significant feature is that the article's use stated in the claim preamble is, in principle, not limiting.

In Japan, the 2016 revision of the Examination Guidelines strengthened protection for food-use inventions, but overseas, national laws and examination practices differ greatly. 1. Permissible claims ① US: Product-use inventions are not recognized; draft as methods. A use in the preamble often has no limiting effect.

Chinese Supreme Court, (2019) 最高法行申 No. 12487 1. Case outline The application was rejected for lack of novelty (self-collision) based on earlier application 134.

The trial decision rejecting invalidation identified a difference: the invention’s “information provision apparatus” was a single apparatus, whereas the primary cited invention’s “learning and daily-life support system 1” included multiple apparatuses—a “learning and daily-life support server 2” and a “user terminal 3.” It therefore recognized novelty and inventive step.

[Packaging container / Partial design] (Presiding Judge Masuda) ★ A judgment clarifying whether a partial design and an overall design can be registered as related designs, and the difference in the scope of comparison in assessing novelty!! <Comparison with the principal design: related design, Article 10(1)>