[Article / Patents] Same patent and reference, but different novelty findings in IP High Court judgments by the same division on the same day (a trial-decision revocation action and an…
更新日：3 時間前
Article information
Categories: Patents
Topics: Novelty / Patent corrections / Litigation procedure
Published on this website: 2026-09-29
[Article / Patents] Same patent and reference, but different novelty findings in IP High Court judgments by the same division on the same day (a trial-decision revocation action and an infringement action), with a correction-based rejoinder dismissed as untimely (Hideki Takaishi, Patent, March 2024)
The trial decision rejecting invalidation identified a difference: the invention’s “information provision apparatus” was a single apparatus, whereas the primary cited invention’s “learning and daily-life support system 1” included multiple apparatuses—a “learning and daily-life support server 2” and a “user terminal 3.” It therefore recognized novelty and inventive step.
In the invalidity defense in the infringement action, it was argued, from the first-instance stage, that only the primary cited invention’s “learning and daily-life support server 2,” rather than the “learning and daily-life support system 1” comprising that server and “user terminal 3,” corresponded to the claimed “information provision apparatus,” thereby turning the difference identified in the trial decision into a common feature.
As a result, the comparison treated the cited invention as also having an “information provision apparatus” consisting of a single apparatus. The difference identified in the trial decision disappeared, and novelty was denied.
Originally posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7510494949847568384/
