IP High Court, Reiwa 7 (Ne) 10042 [Fastening hardware] <Judge Hibiku Shimizu>
Updated: 2 days ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Claim interpretation
First published on this website: October 6, 2026
Case information: Reiwa 7 (Ne) 10042 [Fastening hardware] <Judge Hibiku Shimizu>
Display/classification checked: October 6, 2026
IP High Court, Reiwa 7 (Ne) 10042 [Fastening hardware] <Judge Hibiku Shimizu>
* Reciting an effect in the claim (“to delay destruction caused by the growth of cracks and improve short-term allowable load-bearing capacity”) was held not to limit the configuration of the invention.
+ The comparator (excluded configuration) asserted by the plaintiffs is not described in the specification.
(Excerpt from the judgment, translated)
The phrase “to improve short-term allowable load-bearing capacity” is also described in the specification as an operation/effect of the invention. The specification discloses no configuration beyond the “configuration of the branch-like portions” as necessary to obtain that operation/effect.... Accordingly, the phrase merely indicates the operation/effect intended to be achieved by the “configuration of the branch-like portions” and does not limit the configuration of the invention. Even if improving short-term allowable load-bearing capacity in practice requires the specific design (conditions) asserted by the plaintiffs in addition to the “configuration of the branch-like portions,” the wording “to improve short-term allowable load-bearing capacity” cannot be regarded as specifying any particular design (conditions) other than the “configuration of the branch-like portions.”
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.
Comments