Osaka District Court, 2017 (Wa) 7384 [Massage Machine] <Damages>

日本語版 / Japanese version

Article information

Article type: Case note

Categories: Patents

Topics: Damages

First published on this website: 2026-11-14

Display and classification checked: 2026-11-15

<Damages> Rebuttal of the presumption under Article 102(2): 98% rebutted (Invention 2), 85% rebutted (Invention 3)

JPY 5.5 billion claimed; approximately JPY 2.78 billion awarded

<Grounds for rebutting the presumption>　

(1) Invention II made only a slight contribution, while Invention III made a limited contribution. Most of the defendant’s products relating to Invention II were purchased because of functions or other features unrelated to the characteristics of Invention II.

(2) Numerous competing products are made by Panasonic, which has the second-largest market share.

(* Although the percentages rebutted differ between Invention II and Invention III, the wording applying the law in the judgment is largely the same.)

(Extract from the court's reasoning)

　Among the defendant's products at issue, those relating to Invention II received only a slight contribution from Invention II, and most are found to have been purchased because of functions, etc. other than the features of Invention II. Taking into account, in addition, the existence of numerous competing products made by Panasonic, which has the second-largest share of the massage-chair market, and other circumstances, there are circumstances substantially impairing the causal relationship between the defendant's profits and the plaintiff's damage. It is therefore appropriate to find the presumption rebutted for 98% of the defendant's profits.

For the defendant's products relating to Patent III, the contribution of Invention III can be said to be limited. Considering the existence of numerous competing Panasonic products mentioned above and other circumstances, there are circumstances impairing to a considerable degree the causal relationship between the defendant's profits and the plaintiff's damage. It is therefore appropriate to find the presumption rebutted for 85% of the defendant's profits.

For the defendant's products relating to both Patents II and III, it is appropriate, as with those relating to Patent III, to find the presumption rebutted for 85% of the defendant's profits.

<Application of Article 102(3) to the rebutted portion>

Even where rebuttal of the presumption under Article 102(2) of the Patent Act is accepted, so that the amount of lost profits from a reduction in the profits earned by the patentee from practicing the invention, etc., presumed from the infringer's profits, cannot be recognized as damages without adjustment, the invention was nonetheless worked without permission in respect of that portion. The assessment of damage for that portion therefore cannot be said to be exhausted, and it is appropriate to interpret that the patentee, etc. may seek compensation for the loss of royalties it should have received from the infringer. Accordingly, it is appropriate to interpret that damages under Article 102(3) may be claimed for the portion for which the presumption under paragraph (2) has been rebutted.

https://www.courts.go.jp/osaka/vc-files/osaka/attachmentfile/attachmentfile-file-204868.pdf

Originally published: 2023-11-21

Original article: https://ameblo.jp/hideki-takaishi/entry-12829494841.html

Related articles

Shared topic: Damages：Osaka District Court, 2020 (Wa) 3473 [Lighting Fixture] <Matsuami> <Damages> Rebuttal of the presumption under Article 102(2): rebutted by 80%

Consultation guide

Update history

This history records publication, display, and classification changes actually made on this website.

November 14, 2026: The original text was first published on this website.

November 15, 2026: Categories, topic tags, article information, language navigation, related articles, consultation link, and SEO were maintained. The original text was not changed.

Contact for consultations and lectures