IP High Court, Reiwa 6 (Gyo-Ke) 10100 [Child safety seat for attachment to a vehicle seat] <Judge Nakahira>
Updated: 3 days ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Patent corrections, Patent drafting and translation
First published on this website: October 6, 2026
Case information: Reiwa 6 (Gyo-Ke) 10100 [Child safety seat for attachment to a vehicle seat] <Judge Nakahira>
Display/classification checked: October 6, 2026
IP High Court, Reiwa 6 (Gyo-Ke) 10100 [Child safety seat for attachment to a vehicle seat] <Judge Nakahira>
The JPO decision permitting correction of a mistranslation was revoked.
~ The patent proprietor's inconsistent position had an impact.
(The judgment notes that the proprietor had previously argued that “LINEAR → 直線的 (straight-line)” was correct.)
<Requirements for correction of a mistranslation>
① The meaning of the description in the international application's specification (original text) differs from that in the specification, claims or drawings at registration (as corrected if there has been a correction through a trial for correction), due to a translation error (mistranslation).
② The corrected description expresses the meaning of the original text, so the meanings of the two descriptions coincide.
(Excerpt from the judgment, translated)
Correction Item 7 included a correction, for the purpose of correcting a mistranslation, changing “直線的 (straight-line)” to “直接的 (direct)” in paragraph [0008] of the specification and related documents, where “linear” in the original text (...) had been translated as “直線的 (straight-line)” before the correction....
[…]
However, dictionaries define “linear” as “1a) straight-line, line-shaped”.... Moreover, in the earlier request for correction ..., the defendant not only did not seek correction of the above “直線的 (straight-line)” wording in paragraph [0008], but ... in Correction Item XII of the correction request deemed withdrawn, based on correction of a mistranslation, expressly sought a correction that included translating the word “linear” in two places in the relevant original text ... as “直線的 (straight-line),” asserting that this was the correct translation of the original.
In view of these circumstances, where “linear” in the original text is translated as “直線的 (straight-line)” in the specification, the meanings of the original and the specification cannot be found to differ.
Accordingly, in Correction Item 7 ..., the meaning of “直線的 (straight-line)” in the specification before correction cannot be said to differ from the meaning of “linear” in the original because of a translation error, so requirement ① in (1) above is not satisfied. Nor can the corrected description be said to coincide with an expression of the original meaning, so requirement ② is also not satisfied.
Original article:
Related articles
Update history
This history records actual publication, display, and classification changes made on this site.
This history records display, classification, and text changes made after publication on this website.
October 6, 2026: First published on this website from the LinkedIn original; article information, classification, topics, source, and consultation guide were added.
October 6, 2026: Translation navigation, canonical, and hreflang were aligned with the final published URLs.
October 6, 2026 | Related-article update: Added reciprocal links based on the same case or a shared issue.
2026-10-08: Consolidated the two parts into one article; portions of the translated judgment excerpt were omitted, with omissions marked.
2026-10-12: added stable management IDs; completed missing management lines; completed canonical, hreflang, and paired search-index links. The original article text was not changed.
Comments