Search
[Article / Patents] Same patent and reference, but different novelty findings in IP High Court judgments by the same division on the same day (a trial-decision revocation action and an…
Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む [Article / Patents] Same patent and reference, but different novelty findings in IP High Court judgments by the same division on the same day (a trial-decision revocation action and an infringement action), with a correction-based rejoinder dismissed as untimely (Hideki Takaishi, Patent, March 2024) The trial decision rejecting invalidation identified a difference: the invention’s “information provision apparatus” was a single apparatus, wh
Case No. 2025 (Ne) 10049
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
