IP High Court, Reiwa 6 (Ne) 10101 [Lighting apparatus] <Judge Shoji>
Updated: 3 days ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Claim interpretation, Doctrine of equivalents, Patent corrections
First published on this website: October 2, 2026
Case number (as stated in the source): Reiwa 6 (Ne) 10101
Display and classification checked: October 2, 2026 (not a re-review of the legal analysis)
IP High Court, Reiwa 6 (Ne) 10101 [Lighting apparatus] <Judge Shoji>
<Claim element A: Respective red, blue and green light-emitting means>
<Literal non-infringement>
⇒ The specification defines each light-emitting means by a particular wavelength band (approximately 610–670 nm for red, etc.). There is no basis for finding the accused LEDs fall within those definitions.
The invention also requires three distinct light-emitting means—red, blue and green—but the accused products have only two types, warm-white and daylight-white. Element A is not satisfied.
<Equivalents denied>
Exhibit Otsu 3 already disclosed adjusting the ratio of light from two sources according to biological information (degree of wakefulness), while keeping total light constant. The invention's contribution over the prior art was therefore not substantial. Its essential portion is close to the claim wording: using three light-emitting means.
⇒ The first requirement for equivalents is not satisfied.
Original article: https://lnkd.in/eNPfXrf3
Related cases and materials
Update and correction history
Substantive corrections and supplements are recorded separately from classification, related-article, and display maintenance.
October 2, 2026: First publication of the author's LinkedIn text. Article type, classification, issue tags, source, and consultation guide were added.
Consultation and inquiries
October 2, 2026: Updated topic tags.
Comments