IP High Court, Reiwa 6 (Gyo-Ke) 10043 [Elastoplastic hysteretic damper] <Presiding Judge Honda>
Updated: 4 days ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Issues: Inventive step, Motivation and teaching away, Support requirement
First published on this website: 2026-10-03
Court: Intellectual Property High Court
Case number: Reiwa 6 (Gyo-Ke) 10043
Display and classification checked: 2026-10-03
IP High Court, Reiwa 6 (Gyo-Ke) 10043 [Elastoplastic hysteretic damper] <Presiding Judge Honda>
1. <Ko 1 + Ko 2, etc.>
The plaintiff argued that it was easy to apply the arrangement of Ko 2 (a bridge damper accommodating two-dimensional movement) to Ko 1 (a building damper accommodating movement in one direction).
However, Ko 1 presupposes a load from one direction along a building's structural plane, whereas Ko 2 arranges dampers in multiple directions for two-dimensional bridge movement.
There is no motivation to apply Ko 2's arrangement to Ko 1. Rather, Ko 1's premise of one-directional input teaches away from an arrangement in different orientations.
2. <Ko 12 + Ko 13>
The invention's “pair of shear portions” means two portions, whereas Ko 12's corrugated steel plate is one continuous member and differs structurally.
Ko 13 provides recesses instead of longitudinal ribs. Using one recess would leave one portion recessed and the other flat, and does not suggest a pair of shear portions with different orientations.
3. <Support requirement>
The plaintiff argued that the claim appeared to cover loads from every direction, although the specification did not support every direction.
⇒ A skilled person would understand from the specification that the invention—two differently oriented shear portions—solves the problems of conventional dampers with only one shear portion, such as accommodating only one direction.
The invention does not require maximum energy absorption for loads from all directions.
(Excerpts from the judgment, translated)
The plaintiff argued that corrected invention 1 was functionally defined merely as deforming to absorb energy when subjected to an input load, as if it could handle loads from any direction, and that the JPO erred in finding support despite recognizing that it could not absorb energy from every direction.
However, the specification does not show that corrected invention 1 requires maximum energy absorption for loads from all directions. The plaintiff's argument rests on an incorrect premise and is without merit.
Related articles
Update history
Update history is maintained by adding entries.
2026-10-03: First published on this website; classification, article information, and consultation guide were set.
2026-10-13: aligned related-article, topic-guide, and other managed links with the articles’ published URLs. The original article text was not changed.
Comments