[Article] Interpretation of Broad Patent Claims (Koichi Hirota, Patent, 2005, Vol. 58, No. 7)
更新日：2 日前
Article information
Article type: Publication review
Category: Patents
Topics: Doctrine of equivalents, Creators and inventors
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-06-18 (Japan time). Full English translation.
[Article] Interpretation of Broad Patent Claims (Koichi Hirota, Patent, 2005, Vol. 58, No. 7)
— The “Holes” Theory —
“When comparing a selection invention with an earlier invention, conceptually the selection invention falls within the earlier invention's claims. However, it obtained a patent because it went beyond what the inventor of the earlier invention recognized as the invention. From the view that protection is limited to what the inventor recognized, the selection invention is separate and independent of the earlier invention, with no exploitation relationship—in other words, it does not fall within its technical scope.”
“Regarding the recognition-limit theory, ‘It seeks to afford protection within what the inventor actually recognized; conversely, what the inventor did not recognize should not be protected … taking this view to its logical extreme severely limits the room for applying the doctrine of equivalents discussed below.’”
Translator’s notes (editorial)
The source has unmatched nested quotation marks; their substance is fully translated, with the closing quotation made readable in English.
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.
