Osaka District Court, 2022 (Wa) 2058 [Floor Opening Cover] <Takemiya> — Only the third requirement of equivalence rejected!!
Updated: 1 day ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Doctrine of equivalents
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-02-21 (Japan time). Full English translation.
Osaka District Court, 2022 (Wa) 2058 [Floor Opening Cover] <Takemiya>
*Only the third requirement of the doctrine of equivalents was rejected!! (Second requirement satisfied)
“There is no evidence … that would establish that a person skilled in the art could readily replace the ‘screw hole’ configuration of Invention 1 with a configuration deliberately reducing fastening strength …. Accordingly, the third requirement for infringement by equivalence cannot be recognized.”
(Excerpts from the court's reasoning)
Invention 1 produces the functions and effects of preventing level differences and rattling by screwing screws into “screw holes” formed on the rear surface of the cover frame to secure the cover surface plate and cover base plate in close contact. In contrast, in the “cover (flooring specification),” a cover-frame assist screw is tightened into the space formed by combining the cover-frame assist-screw arcuate portion provided in the cover frame of Defendant Product 1 with the corresponding arcuate portion of the back cover, securing the back cover and flooring material in close contact and preventing level differences and rattling. In this respect it produces the same functions and effects as Invention 1, so the second requirement for infringement by equivalence is recognized.
On the other hand, it is understood to be common general technical knowledge that forming the space into which a screw is tightened from a single member achieves stronger screw fastening (fixing force) than forming it from multiple members. There is no sufficient evidence establishing that a person skilled in the art could readily replace the “screw hole” configuration of Invention 1 with the above configuration of Defendant Product 1, which is considered deliberately to reduce fastening strength. Accordingly, the third requirement for infringement by equivalence cannot be recognized.
Update history
The first-published date remains unchanged. Display maintenance, classification changes, related-article updates, and text corrections are recorded separately.
November 1, 2026: First published on this website.
November 2, 2026: Added article information, classification, topics, language navigation, related articles where the same case was confirmed, consultation guidance, and SEO. The original text and first-published date were preserved.
Comments