Intellectual Property High Court (Grand Panel), Reiwa 5 (Ne) No. 10040 — Composition for promoting an increase in subcutaneous adipose tissue (Judge Honda)
Updated: Oct 9
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Claim interpretation
First published on this site: 2026-10-10
Display/classification checked: 2026-10-10
Intellectual Property High Court (Grand Panel), Reiwa 5 (Ne) No. 10040 — Composition for promoting an increase in subcutaneous adipose tissue (Judge Honda)
*Where consideration is received, the act generally does not constitute experimentation or research under Article 69(1) of the Patent Act.
Unlike the judgment below, the court found that the appellee had prepared and administered a formulation containing components ①, ② and ③ simultaneously.
→ Claim satisfied; the patentee won on appeal.
*The issue that had attracted attention—whether separate administration of components ① and ②, and component ③, would satisfy the claim—thus disappeared.
The patented “composition for breast augmentation” is used for breast augmentation, whose purpose is primarily aesthetic.
→ Under current social conventions, it is not a substance used for diagnosing, treating, addressing or preventing human disease.
→ It does not fall within an invention of a medicine to be manufactured by mixing two or more medicines (substances used for diagnosing, treating, addressing or preventing human disease) under Article 69(3).
(Excerpts from the judgment, translated; portions omitted)
Article 69(1) seeks, from an industrial-policy standpoint, to harmonize the interests of patentees and the general public, because experimentation or research ordinarily does not harm the patentee’s economic interests, while extending patent protection to such experiments would hinder technological progress and industrial development. [...]
An act of working a patented invention in exchange for consideration harms the patentee’s economic interests. Accordingly, even if a research purpose coexists, it does not constitute working the invention for experimentation or research unless special circumstances exist. [...]
The appellee provided the surgery for consideration and manufactured a composition within the invention’s technical scope for use in it. [...] Discounts varied; some surgeries during the claimed monitoring period were not discounted, whereas substantial discounts were given afterward. It could not be said that surgeries during that period were provided at a price so low as not substantially to constitute consideration. The special circumstances were therefore absent, and the appellee’s acts did not constitute working the invention for experimentation or research.
Original article (2025-08-28):
Related articles
Update history
This history records actual publication, display, and classification changes made on this site.
2026-10-10: First published the LinkedIn original on this site and set the classification, article information, and consultation link.
2026-10-10: Aligned the translation link, canonical URL and hreflang with the verified public URLs.
2026-10-10: Updated topic tags and related-article links. The original article text was not changed.
Comments