IP High Court, Reiwa 7 (Ne) 10043 [Vehicle guidance system] <Presiding Judge Honda>
Updated: 2 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 7 (Ne) 10043
Display and classification checked: October 2, 2026 (not a re-review of the legal analysis)
IP High Court, Reiwa 7 (Ne) 10043 [Vehicle guidance system] <Presiding Judge Honda>
—The finding of claim satisfaction was reversed!
* “Guiding to a route returning to a point before…” requires more than guiding partway toward that route.
1. Guidance means for returning again to a point before the ETC-only entrance/exit
After being sent back to an ordinary road or service area, a driver may independently find and return to the original ETC-only entrance/exit. However, “guidance” means leading toward a destination. The mere ability to return voluntarily does not amount to being guided.
The appellee argued that guidance to the “second lane” was sufficient, without guidance beyond it to the point before the ETC-only entrance/exit. The court rejected this: treating any route a vehicle might independently take as “leading to” that point ignores a defining limitation of the invention and contradicts the specification.
2. Guidance means leading to an entrance/exit for ordinary vehicles
The defendant's systems were not found to have such an entrance/exit.
The appellee argued that this could include an ordinary-vehicle entrance/exit at another adjacent interchange. However, the specification does not disclose guidance means to that other interchange. A vehicle unable to use the smart interchange ultimately having to use a nearby ordinary entrance/exit is difficult to regard as the result of guidance. That construction was rejected.
Judgment excerpt (abridged):
Allowing a vehicle to take any route after leaving the second lane would effectively allow that lane to connect anywhere and would disregard the claimed destination limitation. Paragraph 0035 describes taking lane E and returning to the point for choosing lane A, B, or C again. Paragraph 0036 describes lane E merging upstream of the ticket-issuing boxes in ordinary-vehicle lanes B or C. These passages show that simply traveling along the lane guides the vehicle to the destination; they do not treat independently finding an arbitrary route after leaving the lane as guidance.
Original article: https://lnkd.in/eHwJTea5
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