2003 (Gyo-Ke) 104 [New Medical Use of Tachykinin Antagonists]
Updated: 2 days 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: 2025-07-15 (Japan time). Full English translation.
2003 (Gyo-Ke) 104 [New Medical Use of Tachykinin Antagonists]
*Inventive step of the medical-use invention affirmed, on the basis that a description enabling confirmation of the functions and effects of substances other than those in the working example was necessary.
(Excerpt from the court's reasoning)
In the detailed description of the invention in the specification at issue, both NK1 receptor antagonistic activity and activity in treating emesis are found to have been confirmed only for the (2S,3S) enantiomer of the (±)-cis-3-(2-methoxybenzylamino)-2-phenylpiperidine identified in item (1) above. The position would be different if a person skilled in the art could objectively comprehend a correlation between NK1 receptor antagonistic activity and activity in treating emesis—for example, if the detailed description of the invention in the specification contained descriptions enabling confirmation that a sufficiently wide variety of structurally dissimilar substances having NK1 receptor antagonistic activity were effective in treating emesis. In the detailed description of the invention in the specification at issue, however, although it can be said to be substantiated that the NK1 receptor antagonist (2S,3S)-3-(2-methoxybenzylamino)-2-phenylpiperidine can be used to treat emesis, there is no description substantiating, in the first place, a correlation between NK1 receptor antagonistic activity and activity in treating emesis for other NK1 receptor antagonists. Accordingly, the detailed description of the invention cannot be found to describe antiemetic agents containing those other antagonists as active ingredients to an extent that would enable a person skilled in the art readily to work the invention ….
Translator’s notes (editorial)
SOURCE INCONSISTENCY: The introductory comment states that inventive step was affirmed, while the quoted reasoning concerns enablement and concludes that the broader group of antagonists is not enabled. Both are translated as supplied without silently reconciling them.
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