[Article / Patents] Examination of clarity assessments in recent court decisions (Kentaro Okada et al., Patent, June 2025)
Updated: 4 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Publication review
Categories: Patents
Main topics: Clarity / Patent drafting and translation / Product-by-process claims
First published on this website: October 1, 2026
Display and classification checked: October 1, 2026 (not a revalidation of the legal analysis)
[Article / Patents] Examination of clarity assessments in recent court decisions (Kentaro Okada et al., Patent, June 2025)
Clarity assessments cannot be said to have become stricter than before!!
1. Expressions of degree such as “substantially” and “approximately”
Example held unclear
Dies for polygonal-section wire case (No. 17): “Substantially polygonal” did not distinguish between rounding inevitably arising in manufacture (tolerances) and deliberate changes in shape, leaving the scope of rights unclear.
Example held clear
Tilling claw case (No. 10):
The expression could be understood as meaning within mechanical tolerances, and a skilled person could identify its scope using common technical knowledge; it was therefore clear.
2. JPO trial-decision and court-judgment tendencies
Whereas the JPO emphasizes whether formal descriptions exist, courts tend to substantively assess a skilled person's ability to understand.
<JPO> If the specification lacks a direct definition or calculation method, the JPO tends to formally find lack of clarity.
<Courts> Even with an insufficient specification, courts consider common technical knowledge at filing and relevant research, finding clarity if a skilled person can reasonably understand the scope (e.g. tape for fixing vehicle-mounted parts and cell separation method cases).
3. Practical proposals
Court assessments remain flexible, but these measures help prevent disputes.
Define terms: Even for general terms such as “simultaneous” or “integral,” include explanations guiding interpretation in the specification.
Supplement common technical knowledge: Where numerical limits are difficult, cite official standards such as JIS or ASTM to provide an objective basis for assessment.
Avoid product-by-process claims: In principle, draft by specifying product structures/properties. If a manufacturing process must be stated, logically explain its relationship to the product's structure.
Original article: https://lnkd.in/gZT2h5AS
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