2008 (Gyo-Ke) 10274 [Antibodies against HCV] <Iimura> — Enablement across the full claim scope is necessary
更新日：2 日前
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Enablement
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-01-05 (Japan time). Full English translation.
2008 (Gyo-Ke) 10274 [Antibodies against HCV] <Iimura>
*Enablement is required across the full scope of the claims.
(The general principle is the same for biotechnology/antibodies!)
“The degree of disclosure in the specification supporting the public disclosure … should not be understood as sufficient merely because it enables only a part of ‘the product.’”
(Excerpts from the court's reasoning)
The plaintiff argues … that whether the claimed invention is enabled should properly be understood as satisfied when the specification describes how to produce and use one arbitrarily selected part (here, a polypeptide), and that the trial decision erred in requiring that they be obtained “exhaustively.” …
Considering that the patent system, in exchange for public disclosure, permits the holder to exclusively practice “the product” recited in the claims in the case of a product invention, it is natural that the specification supporting that disclosure must describe the invention sufficiently to enable the entirety of “the product.” It should not be understood as sufficient merely because the disclosure enables only a part of “the product.” …
The plaintiff argues that, in biotechnology-related fields, the current enablement requirement does not demand that all embodiments be obtained exhaustively, and that imposing such a demand would produce harsh consequences for applicants, ultimately contrary to the Patent Act's purpose of encouraging inventions, and would be markedly unreasonable. Certainly, in biotechnology-related fields, even where the detailed description of the invention does not specifically describe every embodiment having a “deletion, insertion or substitution,” it may be permissible for the claims to identify a particular amino acid sequence and additionally encompass cases in which “one or several [amino acids] are deleted, inserted or substituted,” or the like. …However, even where claims in that form are permitted, …if circumstances are found that allow a modified polypeptide having activity similar to that of the original polypeptide to be readily obtained, it is appropriate to regard the so-called enablement requirement as satisfied. But …where practicing the entirety of the technology falling within the claims would require trial and error or ingenuity exceeding what can be expected of a person skilled in the art, the so-called enablement requirement must be regarded as not satisfied.
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.
