Patent Case Law and Intellectual Property Practice Blog

Japanese version Article information Article type: Case note Category: Patents Issues: Inventive step, Numerical limitations and parameters, Motivation and teaching away First published on this website: 2026-10-03 Court: Intellectual Property High Court Case number: Reiwa 6 (Gyo-Ke) 10053 Display and classification checked: 2026-10-03 IP High Court, Reiwa 6 (Gyo-Ke) 10053 [Wood board] <Presiding Judge Hibiki Shimizu> Lacks inventive step. The specification contained no indica

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む: https://www.takaishihideki.com/single-post/linkedin-7511586062423515136-ja Article information Article type: Case note Category: Patents Issues: Inventive step; Numerical limitations and parameters; Design choices First published on this website: 2026-10-03 Display and classification checked: 2026-10-03 IP High Court, Reiwa 6 (Gyo-Ke) 10039 [Bag having embossing] <Presiding Judge Hibiki Shimizu> Cited inventions 1 and 2 both belong to the

* Inventive step denied for a numerically limited invention. (The numerical range in the primary reference was encompassed by the claimed numerical range.)

<Supreme People's Court of China, (2020) 最高法知行終407> 1. Consideration of the Supreme Court judgment Patent: A numerically limited invention combining charge cut-off voltage (over 4.2 V up to 5.8 V) and positive/negative electrode ratio (1:1.0–1:2.5).

1. Claims ① Independent claims Japan: No limit.

The criteria for finding a “design choice,” particularly when inventive step can be denied without direct evidence (a secondary reference), were studied through device/system cases. Cases recognizing design choices without evidence fall into three types:

The dividing line for a “design choice” Whether the configuration constituting the difference correlates with the “problem addressed by the invention,” and whether its technical significance is disclosed in the specification, is the decisive boundary separating obviousness from non-obviousness.

Under what conditions does a claim that numerically limits only the impurity content of a known substance satisfy “inventive step” and the “support requirement”? 1. Inventive step: The “limits” of conventional methods are key Reducing impurities itself is often considered an “obvious problem.” Inventive step therefore depends on whether the value is achievable by extending conventional methods.

[Electric coffee maker] (Presiding Judge Matsuami) Invention 1 at issue has a configuration in which the heater is turned off when the water temperature inside the boiler reaches 90–100°C, and steam pressure caused by boiling is not generated.

[Use of DPPIV inhibitors] (Presiding Judge Hasegawa) Exhibit Ko 1 stated that "in the case of the oral route, the range is preferably 1–100 mg, administered 1–4 times per day." Further, in light of common general knowledge: