IP High Court, Reiwa 6 (Gyo-Ke) 10076 [Fuel and its blending combinations] <Judge Hibiku Shimizu>
Updated: 3 days ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Clarity
First published on this website: October 6, 2026
Case information: Reiwa 6 (Gyo-Ke) 10076 [Fuel and its blending combinations] <Judge Hibiku Shimizu>
Display/classification checked: October 6, 2026
IP High Court, Reiwa 6 (Gyo-Ke) 10076 [Fuel and its blending combinations] <Judge Hibiku Shimizu>
~ Clarity requirement not satisfied.
<Judgment>
The wording “(a) ... (b) ... and (c) ...” in Claim 1 means that conditions (a), (b) and (c) must be “satisfied simultaneously,” in light of the ordinary use of the conjunction “and.”
⇒ While condition (b) means “(L)%/(H)% = 1,” condition (c) specifies a ratio that does not give “(L)%/(H)% = 1” (e.g., 0.4/1 to 0.6/1). There is therefore “no combination of (L)% and (H)% that satisfies both simultaneously.”
<JPO decision>
The JPO decision held that the term “end point of the 90% distillation temperature” was unclear because it is not a well-known, customary technical term, is not defined in the specification, and combines the substantively different terms “90% distillation temperature” and “end point,” making it incomprehensible to a person skilled in the art.
⇒ The judgment did not decide this issue.
Original article:
Related articles
Update history
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.
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