IP High Court, Reiwa 6 (Ne) 10019 [Rolling device] <Presiding Judge Miyasaka>
Updated: 4 days ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Patent corrections
First published on this website: October 2, 2026
Case number (as stated in the source): Reiwa 6 (Ne) 10019
Display and classification checked: October 2, 2026 (not a re-review of the legal analysis)
IP High Court, Reiwa 6 (Ne) 10019 [Rolling device] <Presiding Judge Miyasaka>
★ The patentee lost for insufficient proof.
① Elements 1-A and 2-A: Satisfaction found on appeal, reversing the lower court
The claims contain no limitation such as “without a retainer.” The appellee's products have a transfer path consisting of at least one pair of transfer grooves and multiple rolling bodies inserted so that they can roll freely. They therefore satisfy the wording.
The effects described in the specification do not justify a restrictive construction.
② Element 1-C: Generation of an unloaded region—not satisfied
The appellee's angular-contact ball bearings are used under preload. There is no gap between the balls and the inner or outer rings; they remain in contact.
⇒ No unloaded region in which the rolling body contacts only one transfer groove is generated.
The appellant argued that centrifugal force affected this, but the preload exceeds the centrifugal force. Generation of an unloaded region was not proved.
③ Element 2-C: Relative magnitude of frictional forces—not satisfied
It was not proved that the occurrence of centrifugal force alone necessarily satisfies this element.
Original article: https://lnkd.in/eSU2EkFy
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