[Article / IP Generally] Notes on the prohibition of abuse of rights in intellectual property infringement (Teruo Morimoto, Patent, December 2025)

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む

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/classification checked: 2026-10-10

[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.

https://lnkd.in/gE6Crr4v

Original article: https://lnkd.in/gR_EJ3NU

知的財産権侵害における権利濫用禁止についての覚書

Originally posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7510845637689618432/

Related articles

Further reading: injunctions and royalty-based remedies — [Publication review] [Article / UK Patents] UK litigation over FRAND-rate determination: InterDigital v Lenovo (Kazuto Kobayashi, Patent, September 2025)

Shared topic: Damages — [Unfair competition / Misleading representations of quality] IP High Court, Reiwa 5 (Ne) No. 10061 — “High-penetration nanoe” (Judge Nakadaira)

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 | Related articles: added reciprocal links with shared-topic or comparative grounds; original text unchanged.

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.

Consultation and inquiries

Find information and contact details by consultation purpose

2026-10-10: Updated related-article links. The original article text was not changed.

2026-10-10: Standardized related-article links to their published URLs. The original article text was not changed.

Images from the original AMEBLO article

English translations of the original image text

Original images retained for comparison

Original AMEBLO article

https://ameblo.jp/hideki-takaishi/entry-12968154539.html

October 28, 2026 — HT: Corrected verified names, case references, court labels, wording or judgment links where applicable. Existing commentary and materials have been retained.