Osaka District Court, Heisei 19 (Wa) 13513 [X-Ray Foreign-Matter Inspection Apparatus] <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 19 (Wa) 13513
Display and classification checked: 2026-11-14
Osaka District Court, Heisei 19 (Wa) 13513 [X-Ray Foreign-Matter Inspection Apparatus] <Damages> Article 102(2)
JPY 371.50 million awarded
Contribution rate 20% (80% rebutted)
(1) An important function for maintainability, but an ancillary function.
(2) The defendant has the leading 48% share of the X-ray foreign-matter inspection apparatus market and a comprehensive support system.
The invention concerns the very support structure for the conveying mechanism and line sensor, important components of an X-ray foreign-matter inspection apparatus, and is indispensable to the overall structure of the defendant's product.
In its product pamphlet, the defendant emphasizes ‘cleanability,’ stating that the apparatus ‘can be easily disassembled and washed with water,’ in relation to easy maintenance, an effect of the patented invention. ⇒ The invention, which directly relates to the belt conveyor's cleanability, should be regarded as making a considerable contribution to sales of the defendant's product. However, the product's primary function is to inspect food for foreign matter using X-rays; although maintainability is important, it is only ancillary. The patented invention's contribution is therefore assessed within the limits of that ancillary function.
Defendant's sales capabilities: its leading 48% share in the X-ray foreign-matter inspection apparatus market and comprehensive support system contribute commensurately to sales of its product.
Competitor activities: the exclusivity of a patent right (Patent Act, Article 68) is a special legal effect, and unauthorized working by competitors does not diminish it.
Rather, because, as the defendant argues, competitors such as Anritsu, Nissin Electronics, and System Square practice the patented invention, the invention is found highly useful in X-ray foreign-matter inspection apparatuses, with no readily substitutable alternative technology.
(Extract from the court's reasoning)
(a) Position of the patented invention in the defendant's product
The patented invention concerns the very support structure for the conveying mechanism and line sensor, important components of an X-ray foreign-matter inspection apparatus, and is found indispensable to the overall structure of the defendant's product.
Regarding easy maintenance, an effect of the patented invention, the defendant's product pamphlets (Ko 5 and 15) emphasize ‘cleanability,’ stating that the apparatus ‘can be easily disassembled and washed with water.’ The defendant's product principally inspects food, and food-related machinery must always be kept hygienic, particularly conveyors carrying food. The defendant's instruction manual also recommends daily cleaning: ‘After finishing operation for the day, clean each part of the conveyor.’ Accordingly, the patented invention, which directly relates to the belt conveyor's cleanability, should be regarded as making a considerable contribution to sales of the defendant's product.
However, the defendant's product primarily functions to inspect food for foreign matter using X-rays; although maintainability is an important function, it is only ancillary.
The patented invention's contribution should therefore also be assessed within the limits of that ancillary function.
(b) Availability of alternative technology
The defendant argues that the configuration of the publicly used apparatus is an alternative technology to the patented invention. Admittedly, the technical idea of facilitating maintenance can also be perceived in that apparatus. However, its solution is to support the conveyor unit constituting the conveying mechanism with a member separate from the support member of the main body of the X-ray foreign-matter inspection apparatus, and then pull the unit forward, which differs greatly from the patented invention. Although in Otsu 6 and Otsu 13 the defendant shows cleaning without pulling the conveyor unit forward, the publicly used apparatus's instruction manual (Ko 9, p. 126) states that the conveyor unit is to be pulled out as part of the conveyor-cleaning procedure (despite being the seller of the publicly used apparatus, the defendant shows a maintenance procedure different from its manual). Thus, the means of solving the problem of easy maintenance in the publicly used apparatus should be regarded as pulling the conveyor unit forward. Because the apparatus adopts that structure, it requires correspondingly more work and must be regarded as inferior to the patented invention in maintainability.
Accordingly, although the publicly used apparatus has a configuration facilitating maintenance, it cannot be found to be an alternative technology readily substitutable for the patented invention.
(c) Defendant's technical capabilities
The defendant argues that its product sells because of technical elements other than the patented invention, specifically citing that the space below its conveyor is open and easy to clean.
However, the defendant's pamphlets (Ko 5 and 15) say nothing about that effect. The defendant also points out that the space below the plaintiff's product is not open, but according to the plaintiff's pamphlets (Ko 20, p. 2; Ko 21, p. 3), opening the inspection-chamber door also permits easy cleaning beneath the conveying mechanism in the plaintiff's product. Taking into account as well that daily cleaning is recommended for food-related X-ray foreign-matter inspection apparatuses, it is difficult to regard the open space below the defendant's conveyor as a major selling point.
The defendant also argues that its product sells because of ‘missing-item inspection accuracy,’ ‘durability,’ and ‘ease of handling,’ but there is insufficient evidence to establish this.
(d) Defendant's sales capabilities
The entire purport of the oral argument establishes that X-ray foreign-matter inspection apparatuses are used before or after computer scales, checkweighers, etc. on the same line; that sales capabilities for those peripheral devices led to opportunities to sell X-ray foreign-matter inspection apparatuses; that the defendant has the leading 48% share of the market; and that the defendant maintains a comprehensive support system. These facts are found to contribute commensurately to sales of its product.
The plaintiff argues on this point that the defendant was able to secure a position in the field of X-ray foreign-matter inspection apparatuses because the plaintiff and defendant cooperated closely and inseparably. However, whether the plaintiff contributed to establishing the defendant's sales network is basically unrelated to assessing the patented invention's contribution to sales of the defendant's product, and the argument cannot be accepted.
(e) Competitor activities
The defendant argues that competitors such as Anritsu practice the patented invention in the X-ray foreign-matter inspection apparatus market, and that the patented invention lacks deterrent force and therefore has no exclusive value.
However, the exclusivity of a patent right (Patent Act, Article 68) is a special effect granted by law, and unauthorized working by competitors does not diminish that legal effect.
Rather, because, as the defendant argues, competitors such as Anritsu, Nissin Electronics, and System Square practice the patented invention (the parties do not dispute this fact here, so it is taken as a premise), the invention is found highly useful in X-ray foreign-matter inspection apparatuses, with no readily substitutable alternative technology.
(f) As above, although the patented invention does not concern the primary function of an X-ray foreign-matter inspection apparatus, it is highly useful for maintainability, an important function for food-handling equipment, and no readily substitutable alternative technology is found. Considering also that the patented invention is structurally indispensable to the defendant's product, even accounting for the defendant's sales network's contribution to sales, a contribution rate of 20% for the patented invention is appropriate.
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