The Supreme Court's Product-by-Process Judgments
更新日：10月28日
Article information
Article type: Case note
Display and classification checked: 2026-09-30
Categories: Patents
Topics: Product-by-process claims / Claim interpretation
Published on this website: 2026-09-28
English translation of Hideki Takaishi's Japanese article published on November 27, 2015.
Supreme Court of Japan, June 5, 2015: 2012 (Ju) No. 1204 and 2012 (Ju) No. 2658.
One of the leading decisions on claim construction is the Supreme Court's judgment concerning product-by-process (PBP) claims.
Although expressed in obiter dicta, the judgment indicated that, at least in principle, the same standard should apply both to determining the technical scope of a patented invention for infringement and to identifying the claimed invention for validity. See also Justice Chiba's supplementary opinion and Justice Yamamoto's opinion.
The direct reach of the judgments may concern the construction of PBP claims. Nevertheless, following the IP High Court's Grand Panel judgment, they may also be read as indicating the Supreme Court's willingness to adopt a consistent approach to claim construction.
For a discussion of recent lower-court decisions following the Supreme Court's Lipase judgment and the move away from different standards for identifying the invention and determining its technical scope, see the article on that subject in the materials archive.
This is a translation of a historical commentary. Its observations are presented in the context of the original 2015 article.
Related articles and decisions
Updates and corrections
This log starts on 30 September 2026. Display and classification checks are distinct from a review of the legal analysis.
2026-09-30 — Presentation update: added the article type, this change log and a link to consultation options. The existing article text was preserved.
Intellectual property enquiries
October 28, 2026 — HT: Corrected verified names, case references, court labels, wording or judgment links where applicable. Existing commentary and materials have been retained.
コメント