2023 (Gyo-Ke) 10069 [Soldering Apparatus] <Hibiku Shimizu>
更新日：2 日前
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Inventive step
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2024-11-07 (Japan time). Full English translation.
2023 (Gyo-Ke) 10069 [Soldering Apparatus] <Hibiku Shimizu>
*The binding effect of the first judgment extends to factual findings concerning the differences!!
⇒ Perhaps somewhat harsh to require the patentee who prevailed in the first trial decision to advance, in the prior lawsuit, arguments that the decision passed over….
⇒ Even the party that prevailed before the JPO must make alternative arguments, or the binding effect may prevent it from raising them in the second lawsuit.
(Excerpt from the court's reasoning)
Admittedly, …the first judgment did not decide the matters the plaintiff identifies as Grounds for Cancellation 1 and 2 in this action (whether the portions corresponding to the configuration at issue among the configurations of Invention 1 and the like relating to Differences 2 or 4 constitute substantial differences)…. However, the inventive-step assessment of Invention 1 and the like based on the cited invention in Exhibit Ko 1 is a legal determination made on the basis of identification of those inventions and the cited invention, and the resulting common features and differences. …Because binding effect extends to factual findings and legal determinations necessary to derive the judgment's operative part, the first judgment's binding effect also extends to the factual findings concerning differences between Invention 1 and the like and the cited invention in Exhibit Ko 1 that formed the premise for its legal determination denying lack of inventive step…. Accordingly, when assessing inventive step based on the same cited invention in Exhibit Ko 1, the trial examiners were not permitted by the first judgment's binding effect to find different facts and make a different determination. The present trial decision, rendered in accordance with that binding effect, is lawful.
Related articles
Update history
The first-published date remains unchanged. Display maintenance, classification changes, related-article updates, and text corrections are recorded separately.
November 1, 2026: First published on this website.
November 2, 2026: Added article information, classification, topics, language navigation, related articles where the same case was confirmed, consultation guidance, and SEO. The original text and first-published date were preserved.
