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: Claim interpretation, Patent corrections First published on this website: October 2, 2026 Case number (as stated in the source): Reiwa 6 (Ne) 10022 Display and classification checked: October 2, 2026 (not a re-review of the legal analysis) IP High Court, Reiwa 6 (Ne) 10022 [System providing inspection and analysis services] <Presiding Judge Miyasaka> As to the meaning and subject

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, Design choices, Patent corrections First published on this website: October 2, 2026 Case number (as stated in the source): Reiwa 5 (Gyo-Ke) 10062 Display and classification checked: October 2, 2026 (not a re-review of the legal analysis) IP High Court, Reiwa 5 (Gyo-Ke) 10062 [Bone anchor with improved fixation strength] <Presiding Judge Shoji> The claimed “outer su

日本語版を読む / Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Category: Patents Topics: Patent corrections First published on this website: October 2, 2026 Case number (as stated in the source): Reiwa 5 (Gyo-Ke) 10092 Display and classification checked: October 2, 2026 (not a re-review of the legal analysis) IP High Court, Reiwa 5 (Gyo-Ke) 10092 [Bag processing machine] <Presiding Judge Honda> * Violation of the expanded prior-application rule (Patent Act Article 29-

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

日本語版を読む / Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Category: Trademarks Topics: Similarity of trademarks, Distinctiveness, Confusion, Abuse of rights, Patent corrections First published on this website: October 2, 2026 Case number (as stated in the source): Osaka District Court, Reiwa 6 (Wa) 5007 Display/classification checked: 2026-10-10 [Trademarks] Osaka District Court, Reiwa 6 (Wa) 5007, “Awa koi ichigo” <Presiding Judge Matsukawa> Trademark at issue:

日本語版を読む / Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Category: Patents Topics: Inventive step, Patent corrections First published on this website: October 2, 2026 Case number (as stated in the source): Reiwa 5 (Ne) 10063 Display and classification checked: October 2, 2026 (not a re-review of the legal analysis) IP High Court, Reiwa 5 (Ne) 10063 [Electric impact fastening tool] <Presiding Judge Hibiki Shimizu> Inventive step denied. <Difference A> The inventi

Since the specification consistently states “angular velocity,” correction (reinterpretation) as a clerical error to “angular acceleration” is not permitted. ⇒ The claimed invention (including a physically contradictory formula) cannot be said to be described in the detailed description of the invention, and violates the support requirement.

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.