Osaka District Court, 2005 (Wa) 12207 [Goggles]
更新日：2 日前
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: Patents
Topics: Divisional applications
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-06-01 (Japan time). Full English translation.
Osaka District Court, 2005 (Wa) 12207 [Goggles]
*The patentee's arguments during prosecution of the parent of a divisional application were not considered in construing the claim language.
*Consistent with Tokyo District Court, 2002 (Wa) 23687.
“The plaintiff's deletion of claims 4 through 7 from the parent application does not establish that it intentionally excluded the patented inventions at issue.”
(Excerpt from the court's reasoning)
…The amendment concerned the parent application, not the patented inventions in the divisional application. As explained above, claims 4 through 7 of the parent application are not found to be identical to the patented inventions at issue. Thus, the plaintiff's deletion of those claims cannot be regarded as intentional exclusion of the patented inventions at issue.
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.
