Osaka District Court, Heisei 23 (Wa) 6878 [Method for Stabilizing the Coloration of a Colored Plaster Composition]
Updated: 1 hour ago
Article information
Type: Case note
Classification: Patents
Topics: Damages
First published on this site: 2023-12-06
Case number: Heisei 23 (Wa) 6878
Display and classification checked: 2026-11-14
Osaka District Court, Heisei 23 (Wa) 6878 [Method for Stabilizing the Coloration of a Colored Plaster Composition]
<Damages> Article 102(2)
JPY 26.78 million awarded
<Grounds for rebutting the presumption> 60%
(1) Existence of competitors
(2) Features other than the invention: the defendant's catalog does not list the invention's ingredients or the accompanying uniformity and stability of coloration, prevention of uneven color, etc. as features
<Grounds for rebutting the presumption>
The invention has the effect of making the coloration of a colored plaster composition uniform and stable and preventing uneven color in the colored plaster coating formed when that composition is used. For a colored plaster composition used as a wall-coating material, this enhances usefulness and directly relates to commercial value, contributing to profits from sales of the defendant's product.
However, Patented Invention 1 is neither a product invention nor an invention of a method for producing a product, but a simple method invention. Its contribution to profits from sales of the product must therefore be evaluated as low.
Features other than the invention: the website and catalog introducing the defendant's product did not list as product features the ingredients specified in the invention or the resulting effects of uniform and stable coloration or prevention of uneven color in the colored plaster coating formed when the product is used. Rather, while taking plaster's humidity-regulating function, etc. as a basis, the website and catalog emphasized features such as deodorizing through the inclusion of titanium oxide and antibacterial action through silver ions. These features also appear actually to have stimulated a certain amount of demand.
Existence of competitors
(Extract from the court's reasoning)
<Grounds for rebuttal>
Under Article 102(2) of the Patent Act, where a person infringing a patent right (or an contractually exclusive ordinary license) obtains profits from that infringement, the amount of those profits is presumed to be the amount of damage. However, part of that presumption is understood to be rebuttable depending on the degree to which working the patented invention contributed to those profits.
On this point, as also discussed in B above, Patented Invention 1 has the effect of making the coloration of a colored plaster composition uniform and stable and preventing uneven color in the colored plaster coating formed when that composition is used. For a colored plaster composition used as a wall-coating material, this enhances usefulness and directly relates to commercial value, and it certainly contributes to profits from sales of the defendant's Product 1.
However, Patented Invention 1 is neither a product invention nor an invention of a method for producing a product, but a simple method invention. Its contribution to profits from sales of the product must therefore be evaluated as low.
The website (Ko 25) and catalog (Ko 26) introducing the defendant's Product 1 did not list as its features the ingredients specified in Patented Invention 1 or the accompanying effects of uniform and stable coloration or prevention of uneven color in the colored plaster coating formed when the product is used. Rather, while taking plaster's humidity-regulating function, etc. as a basis, the website and catalog emphasized features such as deodorizing through the inclusion of titanium oxide and antibacterial action through silver ions. These features also appear actually to have stimulated a certain amount of demand (Otsu 50–2).
Considering, in addition to the foregoing circumstances, the existence of competitors (Ko 33; Otsu 12 and 13), it is appropriate to find the presumption under Article 102(2) of the Patent Act rebutted to the extent of 60%.
Originally published: 2023-12-06
Related articles
Update history
The first publication date and update dates are recorded separately. Display maintenance does not mean that the legal analysis was re-verified.
2026-11-14: Display and classification maintenance (article information, issue tags, language/SEO links, related articles, and consultation path added).
Comments