Tokyo District Court, Heisei 20 (Wa) 2944 [Normally Closed Flow-Control Valve]<Damages> Article 102(2)
Updated: 1 hour ago
Article information
Type: Case note
Classification: Patents
Topics: Damages
First published on this site: 2023-12-13
Case number: Heisei 20 (Wa) 2944
Display and classification checked: 2026-11-14
Tokyo District Court, Heisei 20 (Wa) 2944 [Normally Closed Flow-Control Valve]<Damages> Article 102(2)
JPY 396.20 million awarded
Contribution rate 40% (60% rebutted)
<Grounds for rebutting the presumption>
Alternative technology: pressure-type control devices and thermal-type flow-control devices fundamentally differ in their underlying approach to flow control; one is not an improved version of the other, and their characteristics each have advantages and disadvantages. Users therefore choose the method best suited to what is to be controlled, considering each device's features. As stated above, many features of the defendant's product that the defendant invokes could also have been accommodated by the plaintiff in a mass-flow controller if customers had requested similar specifications.
(Extract from the court's reasoning) <Grounds for rebuttal>
... As above, pressure-type control devices and thermal-type flow-control devices fundamentally differ in their underlying approach to flow control; one is not an improved version of the other, and their characteristics each have advantages and disadvantages. Users can therefore be said to choose the method best suited to what is to be controlled, considering each device's features. As stated above, many features of the defendant's product that the defendant invokes are found to have been capable of accommodation by the plaintiff even in a mass-flow controller if customers had requested similar specifications.
(Passage omitted in source)
Considering comprehensively the circumstances found in Section 8 above, a 40% contribution of the invention to sales of the defendant's product is appropriate.
The defendant argues, by contrast, that (1) its product was jointly developed with its customer; (2) it has features absent from the plaintiff's product (flow control using a pressure sensor); and (3) the plaintiff had no sales history with that customer, which had previously purchased mass-flow controllers from companies other than the plaintiff. On these grounds, it argues that even absent infringement, there was no possibility that the plaintiff could have sold its product to the defendant's customer and that the plaintiff did not suffer damage equivalent to the profits from sales of the defendant's product. However, in light of the circumstances found in Section 8 above, it cannot necessarily be said that the defendant's product is superior to the plaintiff's, or that competitors' products are superior to the plaintiff's and the defendant's customer would have purchased a competitor's product if the defendant's product had not been sold. Such circumstances cannot be established. Accordingly, circumstances rebutting the presumption under Article 102(2) of the Patent Act are not found in this case.
Originally published: 2023-12-13
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