Osaka District Court, 2022 (Wa) 9112 and 11173 [Leak-Prevention Sealing Material] <Matsuami>
更新日：2 日前
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Other Japanese law
Topics: Numerical limitations and parameters
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-02-04 (Japan time). Full English translation.
Osaka District Court, 2022 (Wa) 9112 and 11173 [Leak-Prevention Sealing Material] <Matsuami>
*The parameter/numerical value cannot be identified from the accused product. ⇒ Limitation not satisfied
The yarn cross sections reported from the image analysis are irregular and lack a circular or nearly circular shape, and it is difficult to identify anything that could be called a “diameter” from those images. …Satisfaction of claim element 1C cannot be said to have been proved ….
⇒ Limitation not satisfied
(Excerpts from the court's reasoning)
The plaintiff's … measurement involved dripping adhesive onto the sealing material of the defendant's product and allowing it to penetrate; after drying, fixing it with masking tape; placing a metal ruler against the sealing material perpendicular to the alignment direction of the pile yarns; cutting it with a single slice of a razor blade used as a cutting jig along the ruler; imaging the cross section; and analyzing the image to determine the cross-sectional areas of the weft and pile yarns. …
However, …claim element 1C concerns the relative sizes of the yarn “diameters.” Using cross-sectional area to compare yarn thickness is contrary to the unambiguous meaning of the wording and is also inconsistent with the common general technical knowledge of a person skilled in the art discussed above …. …Moreover, considering the specific measurement means, the measurement is performed after processing and destroying the defendant's product, and thus differs in its premise even from what the plaintiff itself calls “measurement in the product state” …. In addition, the cutting method does not guarantee an accurately perpendicular cut relative to the fiber direction, and appears to take no account of changes in cross-sectional area arising from differences in cutting angle or location, raising doubts about control of measurement conditions. In the image analysis as well, it can be seen that the “cross-sectional area” may differ depending on how the outline of the yarn (and its constituent fibers) is identified, whether voids are included, and other factors. …It must therefore be said that neither the image-creation process nor the image analysis ensures accurate and reasonable measurement. Further, the yarn cross sections reported from the image analysis (outlines including voids) are irregular and lack a circular or nearly circular shape, and it is difficult to identify anything that could be called a “diameter” from those images. Accordingly, …satisfaction of claim element 1C cannot be said to have been proved ….
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.
