[Article / IP Generally] Notes on the prohibition of abuse of rights in intellectual property infringement (Teruo Morimoto, Patent, December 2025)
Updated: 4 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Publication review
Categories: Patents / Copyright
Main topics: Abuse of rights / Injunctions / Damages
First published on this website: October 1, 2026
Display and classification checked: October 1, 2026 (not a revalidation of the legal analysis)
[Article / IP Generally] Notes on the prohibition of abuse of rights in intellectual property infringement (Teruo Morimoto, Patent, December 2025)
① The Ricoh case and how “compulsory mediation” should operate
Although the first-instance judgment also dismissed damages entirely, as long as the implementer actually enjoys the patented invention's benefits, a solution denying an injunction but allowing payment equivalent to a reasonable licence fee (royalty)—following the Supreme Court's 1968 judgment—is desirable from the perspectives of legal consistency and equity.
This also accords with the purpose of compulsory licensing (adjudication), preventing excessive preferential treatment of an implementer who neglected licensing negotiations.
② Use as substantive fair use in copyright law
The Goldfish Telephone case (Osaka High Court, 2021)—functional constraints: Where the purposes of attracting tourists or maintaining living organisms (aeration) leave few alternative forms of expression, there are situations in which the creator's freedom of expression and freedom of business should be protected.
⇒ Instead of forcing a finding of non-infringement when determining copyrightability (the constituent requirements), using abuse-of-rights doctrine (category ④) to deny injunction and disposal but allow only damages equivalent to royalties enables a flexible and equitable solution.
Original article: https://lnkd.in/gR_EJ3NU
Related articles
Updates and corrections
Substantive corrections and additions are recorded separately from classification, related links and display changes.
October 1, 2026: First publication of the author's original LinkedIn text on this website. Article type, categories, topic tags, sources and consultation navigation added.
2026-10-01 | Display maintenance: added case references stated in the original or language-alternate metadata; not a revalidation of legal analysis.
2026-10-01 | Name notation: replaced verified Japanese-script personal names with Roman-letter forms in this English article and its navigation. Legal analysis and original publication date unchanged.
Comments