IP High Court, Reiwa 6 (Ne) 10072 [Draft difference measuring apparatus] <Presiding Judge Nakahira>
Updated: 4 days ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Categories: Patents
Issues: Damages
First published on this website: October 5, 2026
Case information: Reiwa 6 (Ne) 10072 [Draft difference measuring apparatus] <Presiding Judge Nakahira>
Display/classification checked: 2026-10-10
IP High Court, Reiwa 6 (Ne) 10072 [Draft difference measuring apparatus] <Presiding Judge Nakahira>
“Of the expenses for maintaining the patent and related expenses, those incurred for the opposition proceedings were expenses for responding to the patent oppositions filed by the first-instance defendant and Nippon Steel concerning the patent. However, since those patent oppositions cannot be found to have been unlawful, a tort by the first-instance defendant cannot be established.
Of the expenses for maintaining the patent and related expenses, those other than the expenses for the opposition proceedings were incurred by the first-instance plaintiff, at its own discretion, to apply for and maintain the patent. In the first place, the first-instance plaintiff did not have to incur those expenses as a result of the first-instance defendant's acts. Therefore, an adequate causal relationship between the first-instance defendant's acts and the first-instance plaintiff's expenditure cannot be established.”
Original article:
Related articles
Update history
Dated entries are added when the text is corrected or supplemented, or when classification, related links, or presentation is updated.
October 5, 2026: First published from the LinkedIn original, with article information, classification, source, language link, and consultation guide.
Consultation
2026-10-10: Updated related-article links. The original article text was not changed.
Comments