Patent Case Law and Intellectual Property Practice Blog

日本語原文 / Japanese original Article information Article type: Case note Category: Patents Topics: Employee inventions, Creators and inventors First published on this website: 2026-11-01 Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026 Originally published on Ameblo: 2024-07-03 (Japan time). Full English translation. https://ameblo.jp/hideki-takaishi/entry-12858472717.html [Patent/Employee Invention] 2023 (Ne) 10090 <Hibiku Shimizu> The contribution was only to a part found

日本語原文 / Japanese original Article information Article type: Case note Category: Patents Topics: Creators and inventors, Working of inventions First published on this website: 2026-11-01 Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026 Originally published on Ameblo: July 1, 2024 (Japan time). Full English translation. https://ameblo.jp/hideki-takaishi/entry-12858278372.html 2023 (Gyo-Ke) 10057 [Spray Products] <Honda> Examples were added at the time of filing Priority App

A compilation work = one “that is creative by reason of the selection or arrangement of its materials” (Article 12(1) of the Copyright Act). Author of a compilation work = a person who was creatively and substantively involved in the selection or arrangement of the materials. A p

日本語版 Article information Article type: Case note Categories: United States Topics: Creators and inventors / AI and intellectual property First published on this website: 2026-10-07 Display and classification checked: 2026-10-07 [United States] HOOP v. HOOP (Fed. Cir., 279 F.3d 1004) (2002) Determining inventorship (design authorship) for U.S. design patents ⇒ The later design is similar to the earlier design and merely improves and completes it; it therefore is not a separate

日本語版 Article information Article type: Publication review Categories: United States Topics: Creators and inventors / AI and intellectual property First published on this website: 2026-10-07 Display and classification checked: 2026-10-07 [Article / United States] Determining inventorship (design authorship) for U.S. design patents (Tsuyoshi Fujimoto, AIPPI (2025), Vol. 70, No. 10) USPTO guidance α: A design created by a natural person is input into AI. ⇒ If the AI output is si

日本語版 Article information Article type: Case note Categories: Patents Topics: Creators and inventors First published on this website: 2026-10-07 Display and classification checked: 2026-10-07 Osaka District Court, Reiwa 4 (Wa) 9696 [Method for producing active GcMAF] * A claim seeking registration of the transfer of a share in the patent right under Article 74(1) of the Patent Act or under the agreement was denied. ⇒ If the other party to joint research is filing an applicatio

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む: https://www.takaishihideki.com/single-post/linkedin-7511586458571468801-ja Article information Article type: Case note Category: Patents Issues: Employee inventions; Creators and inventors First published on this website: 2026-10-03 Display and classification checked: 2026-10-03 Tokyo District Court, Reiwa 5 (Wa) 70495 [Spindle motor] (Claim for employee-invention remuneration) <Presiding Judge Nakashima> ⇒ Claim dismissed (inventorship de

There have been five cases claiming remuneration solely on the basis of employee-created designs, but no published court decision has awarded it. Compared with patents (employee inventions), the following differences and points warrant attention in calculating reasonable remuneration.

Case law indicates that overturning creator status through oral testimony alone is extremely difficult; objective evidence such as drawings and daily work reports is indispensable.

(Presiding Judge Matsuami) The plaintiff, a former professor at Tokushima University, alleged that the defendant's program was the plaintiff's copyrighted work or a jointly owned copyrighted work. ⇒ The very existence of the "plaintiff's program" was not established. The plaintiff lost.