Tokyo High Court, 1999 (Ne) 3800 [Underarm Sweat-Absorbing Pad]
更新日：2 日前
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: —
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-05-31 (Japan time). Full English translation.
Tokyo High Court, 1999 (Ne) 3800 [Underarm Sweat-Absorbing Pad]
*Respect the determination in the reasoning of another final judgment concerning the same patent.
*The argument that this was correction of a typographical error was rejected, and intentional exclusion was found.
Cf. 2016 (Ne) 10047 [Electrical Connector Assembly] <Takabe>
*The patentee's counterarguments on invalidity and determinations in an action to rescind a trial decision do not bind the court in an infringement action.
(Excerpts from the court's reasoning)
In this litigation, the appellant alleges infringement of its utility model right by the appellee on the premise that “small curvature” in the specification means “small radius of curvature.” However, this premise is substantially the same issue examined in the other litigation. The appellant's argument therefore seeks precisely to revive and contest a matter that should have been settled when the other litigation became final. Although it does not conflict with res judicata, it seeks to leave unresolved a matter intended to be resolved by a final judgment and plainly gravely harms legal stability. In such circumstances, absent special circumstances such as an error objectively obvious on its face or grounds sufficient to warrant retrial of the other litigation, it is appropriate to respect the determination in the final judgment's reasoning. Reopening the dispute must be regarded as impermissible under the principle of good faith. …
The plaintiff argues that “small curvature,” which plainly has technical significance in the device at issue, is technically equivalent to “small radius of curvature,” which has the opposite meaning. Ultimately, that argument can stand only on the premise that “small curvature” in the specification is an obvious typographical error for “small radius of curvature.” However, as explained in I above, “small curvature” cannot be construed as such an obvious error. The plaintiff's argument is therefore plainly without merit, without any need to consider the remaining points.
Translator’s notes (editorial)
The introduction refers to the “same patent,” while the quotation refers to a utility model right. The source distinction is retained.
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.
