Tokyo High Court, Heisei 15 (Gyo-Ke) No. 166 — …Topical agent for treating atopic dermatitis (Judge Tsukahara)
Updated: Oct 9
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Patent eligibility
First published on this site: 2026-10-10
Display/classification checked: 2026-10-10
Tokyo High Court, Heisei 15 (Gyo-Ke) No. 166 — …Topical agent for treating atopic dermatitis (Judge Tsukahara)
*Falsity of the examples described in the specification was successfully established!
→ Not an “invention” eligible for a patent.
(Excerpt from the judgment, translated)
Although the specification…reports the clinical trial results, there is insufficient evidence to establish (i) that the trial was actually conducted, (ii) that the agents used in it were in fact…the topical ointment and cream, or (iii) that the results were accurately recorded in the specification. Nor does examination of the defendant’s arguments concerning evidence other than the trial provide sufficient grounds to find that the agents have a therapeutic effect. It therefore cannot be inferred that the technical content (technical means) of the alleged invention can achieve its intended technical effect. The alleged invention is thus incomplete as an invention and does not constitute an “invention” within the opening clause of Patent Act Article 29(1), and cannot be patented….
Original article (2025-09-15):
Related articles
Update history
This history records actual publication, display, and classification changes made on this site.
2026-10-10: First published the LinkedIn original on this site and set the classification, article information, and consultation link.
2026-10-10: Aligned the translation link, canonical URL and hreflang with the verified public URLs.
2026-10-10: Updated related-article links. The original article text was not changed.
Comments