2010 (Gyo-Ke) 10121 [Natto Food] <Takizawa>
Updated: 6 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Inventive step
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-06-07 (Japan time). Full English translation.
2010 (Gyo-Ke) 10121 [Natto Food] <Takizawa>
*Different standards apply to whether something is an “invention” eligible to serve as a cited invention and whether it is an “invention” when assessing patentability.
(Excerpts from the court's reasoning)
…It is assumed that there is no discrepancy between the applicant's original intention and the claim wording. Even if there is such a discrepancy, as noted above, it is properly a matter to be addressed on the applicant's own responsibility. The examiner therefore does not bear a duty to investigate whether such a discrepancy exists and, if it does, point out that defect or deficiency in the application. …
Identifying an “invention” in a cited invention for assessing inventive step requires, and is satisfied by, disclosure of the technical concept sufficiently to permit its practice, based on the state of the art at the filing date and to the extent necessary for comparison with the invention in the application and the like. In contrast, identifying the “invention” in an application for assessing patentability requires that it be constituted concretely and objectively enough for a person skilled in the art repeatedly and continuously to achieve the intended technical effect. Even if the two identifications of “invention” do not employ the same standard, that is natural given their different purposes and subjects, and cannot be called unreasonable.
Accordingly, although applying different standards to a particular applicant in comparable cases could violate the principle of equality, the plaintiff's arguments plainly do not establish that the defendant engaged in unequal treatment based on double standards.
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