Patent Attorneys
CONTENTS
CONTACT

HARAKENZO
WORLD PATENT & TRADEMARK


OSAKA
HEAD OFFICE

DAIWA MINAMIMORIMACHI BLDG.,
2-6, 2-CHOME-KITA, TENJINBASHI,
KITA-KU,OSAKA 530-0041 JAPAN
TEL:+81-6-6351-4384
(Main Number)
FAX:+81-6-6351-5664
(Main Number)
E-Mail:

TOKYO
HEAD OFFICE

WORLD TRADE CENTER BLDG. 21 F,
2-4-1, HAMAMATSU- CHO, MINATO-KU,
TOKYO 105-6121,JAPAN
TEL:+81-3-3433-5810
(Main Number)
FAX:+81-3-3433-5281
(Main Number)
E-Mail:


HIROSHIMA
OFFICE

NOMURA REAL ESTATE HIROSHIMA BLDG. 4 F, 2-23 TATEMACHI, NAKA-KU, HIROSHIMA CITY, HIROSHIMA 730-0032, JAPAN
TEL:+81-82-545-3680
(Main Number)
FAX:+81-82-243-4130
(Main Number)
E-Mail:


In the background of the HARAKENZO trademark is a global map wherein countries/regions are sized according to the number of patents registered there in 1991.

Privacy policy


Attorneys & Others

Notable trial decisions and judgments in the field of intellectual property rights are introduced here.

Patent/Utility Model Design Trademark
Copyright Unfair Competition Prevention Law Others

Patent/Utility Model

(1) Suits against Trial Decisions
Liquid Fuel Combustion Device Case(Judicial precedent in relation to making reference to a detailed description and prosecution history)
“Method of Measuring Triglyceride” Case/α Lipase Case
Method of Manufacturing Phenothiazine Derivative Case(Judicial precedent in relation to a significance of the scope of the patent claim)
“Derailment Prevention Device” Case (Judicial precedent in which a technical scope was interpreted to exclude a publicly-known art therefrom)
Pachinko (pinball) Equipment Case (Judicial precedent regarding a joint suit against revocation of a patent)
Case of “Method of Breeding and Multiplying New Breed of Yellow Peach” (A Judicial precedent regarding patentability and effectiveness of a patent)
“Polarized film” case (Judicial precedent in relation to support requirements for a parameter patent)
“Artificial nipple” case (Judicial precedent in relation to the scope within which an applicant can claim priority)
“Fire resistant expansion sheet” case (Judicial precedent in relation to restriction of the scope of claims)
Case 2006 (Gyo-ke) No. 10563 (allowability of the Correction of a claim by revising it into a so-called “excluding claim”)
Case 2007 (Gyo-ke) No. 10074 (applicability of the independent patentability requirement to claims other than the claims for which a limitative restrictive amendment has been filed)
Case 2007 (Gyo-ke) No. 10369 (viability as an invention of a technical idea comprising human intellectual activity)
Case 2007 (Gyo-hi) No. 318 (judgment concerning whether or not the acceptability of a correction should be determined for each claim)
Request for cancellation of trial decision Heisei 20 (Gyo-ke) No. 10096 (judgment on obviousness favorable to the applicant/patentee)
“Suit against trial decision 2008 (Gyo-ke) No. 10483”: Decision regarding “Similarity of the Invention” under Section 29, Article 2 of the Patent Law.
2009(line ke)No. 10353, suit against trial decision (judicial precedent relating to decisions on the clarity requirement in the Patent Law Section 36 (6) (2))
2010(line ke) No. 10064 suit against trial decision (judicial precedent relating approval of an application based on its differences with cited inventions)

(2) Infringement Suits etc.
(2-1) Interpretation of Claim
“Electrical connector case”(Judicial precedent concerning the meaning of claims)
"Beam-Lifting Clamp" Case (A judicial precedent in relation to a construal of technical scope)
Acid Glycoprotein Case (Judicial precedent relating to scope of invention defined by product by process claim)
"Metal Accessory Necklace" Case (A judicial precedent in relation to a technical scope of an invention of a product whose method of production is recited)
"The Method for Forming Electrodeposition Image" Case (A judicial precedent in relation to implementation of part of constituent elements by a third party)
Tripod Stepladder Case (Judicial precedent in relation to “publicly known technique exception” to requirement for doctrine of equivalent)

(2-2) Indirect Infringement/Doctrine of Equivalents
"Bread Baker" Case(Judicial precedent in relation to indirect infringement)
Infinite sliding spline shaft bearing case (Judicial precedent in relation to an example of the requirement for the establishment of equivalency)
Distributing board device of telephone line security connectors” case(Judicial precedent affirming the establishment of equivalency)
“Member for supporting erection of framing” case (Judicial precedent in relation to “possibility of interchangeability”, one of requirements of equivalency)
Film cassette case (Judicial precedent in relation to requirements of equivalency (“Non-essential part” and “Ease of interchangeability”))
Card issuer system case (Judicial precedent which denied establishment of equivalency on a difference in the essential part)
Pen-shaped syringe case (Judicial precedent in relation to the requirements of equivalency (“Non-essential part” and “intentional exclusion”))
Antiseismic latch case(Judicial precedent concerning “conscious exclusion” as a requirement of equivalency)

(2-3) Remedy/Litigation Proceedings against Infringement
"Method for Measuring Biologically Active Agents" Case(Judicial precedent in relation to a petition for refraining infringement)
"Transmission Gear" Case(Judicial precedent in relation to an order for submission of documents)
"Model Gun" Case(Judicial precedent in relation to compensation for damage)
Cimetidine case(Judicial precedent concerning claim for compensation for damages)
Slot machine case(Judicial precedent concerning claim for compensation for damage)
“BBS district court” case (Judicial precedent relating to a claim for damages in a case where an infringement product is distributed from hand to hand)
Winding device Case (Judicial precedent relating to compensation for unfair profits gained by the infringer of a patent)
Tranilast Case (Judicial precedent relating to speedy trial
Case 2008 (Toku) No. 36 (related to provisional injunction and to Article 105-4(1) of the Japan Patent Act regarding “litigation”)

(2-4) Defenses etc.
(2-4-1) Abuse of Right or Defenses against Abuse of Right
Thermal transfer printing case (Judicial precedent in relation to abuse of right)
Kilby patent Supreme Court case (Judicial precedent in relation to abuse of rights)
" Process of Producing Continuous Wall Body" Case(Judicial precedent in relation to a defense against an abuse of right)
"Sensor Switch" Case(Judicial precedent in relation to a defense against an abuse of right)
Case related to a knife-processing device (Ruling based on Article 104-3 of the Japan Patent Act)

(2-4-2) Defenses of Prior Use
“Walking beam furnace case/ Walking beam case”(Case concerning defense of prior use)
“Case of production method of diphenyl carbonate”(Case concerning defense of prior use)

(2-4-3) Other Defenses etc.
Aerosol Drug Case (Judicial precedent relating to defense that the drug in concern obtains the working effect)
Antifungal compound for external use case (Judicial precedent in relation to a decision made with reference to Detailed Description of the Invention, and prosecution history of an application)
"Object conveying apparatus" case (Judical precedent concerning intentional exclusion)

(2-5) Employees’ Inventions
“Video Disc Pickup” Case (Judicial Precedent regarding employee’s invention)
“Blue Light-Emitting Diode” Case (Judicial Precedent regarding employee’s invention)
Case of “Method for Recovering Useful Element” (Judicial Precedent regarding employee’s invention)

(2-6) Cases Regarding Cancellation of Preservation Due to Change of Circumstance
“Automotive vehicle with automatic loading and unloading device” case(Judicial precedent concerning revoke of preservative disposition on the grounds of changes in circumstances)
“Thermistor resistor device” case(Judicial precedent concerning revoke of preservative disposition on the grounds of changes in circumstances)

(2-7) Foreign-Related Cases
FM Signal Demodulator Case (Judicial precedent relating to infringement of US patent)
BBS Case (A judgment to a defense regarding parallel import)

(2-8) Other Cases Related to Patent Law
“Production method of disulfide” case(Judicial precedent concerning presumption of producing process)
“Bag for exothermic composition” Case (Judicial precedent relating to sameness in inventorship)
Electric pipe bender Case (Judicial precedent relating to infringement of exclusively-licensed non-exclusive license)
“Substituted Purine” Case (A judgment regarding domestic exhaustion of a patent right)

(2-9) Cases Related to Utility Model Law
Synthetic Resin-made wettable-work shoes Case (Judicial precedent relating to necessity of provisional injunction issued based on utility model registration)
“Earth Belt” Case (A judgment regarding necessity of re-warning after amending an application for utility model registration)

(3) Appeal Decisions
(3-1) Novelty/Inventive step
Objection 2006-3708 (determination on a difference)
Correction 2007-390003 (determination on a difference)
Objection 2005-23220 (numerical limitation)

(3-2) Prior application
Objection 2004-20017 (Section 29bis2: determination on an identical invention)
Objection 2007-5557 (determination on a substantially identical invention)

(3-3) Description requirements
Invalidation 2004-35155 (description requirements of description)
Invalidation 2006-80278 (description requirements of description)

(3-4) Correction
Objection 2005-1068 (restriction under Patent Law Section 17bis2(4)(ii))
Objection 2007-1431 (addition of new matter)
Invalidation 2006-80090 (New matter, Misappropriated application, etc.)
Invalidation 2006-80219 (regarding new matters)

(3-5) Amendment
Correction 2006-39103 (broadening/alteration of a scope of claim)
Correction 2008-390055 (clarification of an ambiguous statement)


Design

(1) Suits against Trial Decisions
Grater Case (Exception to lack of novelty of design)
“COKE” Case (Relation between letters and design)
Flexible and Extensible Hose (Relation between Design Law Section 3(1)(iii) and Section 3(2))
"Turntable" case (Articles protectable by Design Law)
Packaging Bottle" Case (A judicial precedent regarding similarlity of design)

(2) Infringement suits etc.
“Road Safety Barrier” case (Judicial precedent in relation to presumption of negligence)
“Spray gun” case(Judicial precedent in relation to acknowledgement of an essential part in design)
“Stiffening metal for saw” case (Judicial precedent in relation to claim for compensation for damage)
"Packing Basket" Case(Judicial precedent in relation to the scope of prior user"s right)
"Mobile Crane" Case(Judicial precedent in relation to design similarity and role of similar designs)
"Legless Chair" Case (Judicial precedent in relation to an acknowledgement of the feature of a design)
“Elastic cord” Case (A judicial precedent regarding execution of right against a publicly-known design)
“Clamp” Case (A judicial precedent regarding creatorship of a design)
Writing desk case (Judical precedent concerning use of design)


Trademark

(1) Suits against trial decisions
Writing Material Three-Dimensional Mark Case (Judicial precedent relating to three-dimensional mark and discriminate)
Reerudyutan Case (Judicial precedent in relation to Trademark Law Section 4(1), (xv))
"CHEY TOI" Case(Judicial precedent in relation to a period allowed for proving the fact of use of the registered trademark)
"ICOM" Case(Judicial precedent in relation to similarity of goods and services)
"SEIKO EYE" Case(Judicial precedent in relation to similarity of trademarks)
"Dali" case (Judical precedent concerning public order and morals)
“KOKORO” case that states clarity of a “purpose of appeal” for cancellation of a registered trade mark not in use
“COPASS” case that states clarity of a “purpose of appeal” for cancellation of a registered trade mark not in use
“Precedents regarding the relation between the wording “use” (“export”) in Article 2, Section 3, Paragraph 2 and the wording “use” in Article 50, Section 1 of the 2006 Revision of the Japan Trademark Act”

(2) Infringement Suits etc.
“Kozo-Zushi” case (Judicial precedent in relation to a claim made with non-occurrence of damage or loss)
“POPEYE” case (Judicial precedent in relation to a claim regarded as an abuse of rights)
“Fred Perry” case (Judicial precedent in relation to parallel import of genuine goods)
"Family Computer" Case (Judicial precedent in relation to an altered product and the exhaustion of trademark right)
"UNDER THE SUN" Case (Judicial precedent in relation to the use of trademark)
"Kyoho Grape" Case (Judicial precedent in relation to the use of a trademark)
Oil treatment Case (Judicial precedent relating to a sale of a genuine product repacked into small sizes by a third party)

(3) Appeal Decisions (in connection with Trademark Law Article 3(1),Trademark Law Article 4(1)xi)
Cases Relating to Distinctiveness (Distinctive)
Cases Relating to Distinctiveness (Non distinctive)
Cases Relating to Similarity (Similar)
Cases Relating to Similarity (Non distinctive)


Copyright

LEC case (Judicial precedent in relation to the amount of damages for illegal copying of a computer program)
Case clarifying meaning of the term “copy” under Copyright Law


Unfair Competition Prevention Law

A criminal case which ruled that selling Koshihikari rice under the disguise of its production area fell under unfair deeds Section 2(1)(xiii)
A criminal case of Unfair Competition Prevention Act Section 2(1)(xiii) in which Chinese-produced freshwater clams were mixed with Japanese-produced freshwater clams (Yamato Shijimi)
A criminal case that recognized a "place of origin" written in The UnFair Competition Prevention Act Section 2(1)(xiii) includes a "place of processing" in some cases
A case in which an act such as sticking a sticker of a foreign national flag on a packaging bag of hairpins was recognized to fall under the deeds provided in the Unfair Competition Prevention Act Section 2(1)(xiii).
Case in which it was regarded that wordings such as "KYOU NO" had the meaning of "Kyoto", and Unfair Competition Prevention Act Section 2(1)(xiii) was applied to a mark including the wordings.
Criminal case in relation to "aim at unfair competition" under Unfair Competition Prevention Act Section, (1)(xiii)
"iMac" case/ (Judicial precedent in relation to a speedy trial)
2002(wa) No. 16635 Request for remuneration case pertaining to a magnet containing nitrogen (judicial precedent relating to the Patent Law Article 35 Section 3’s “reasonable cost”)


Others

Equipment for the disposal of raw wastes case (Judicial precedent in relation to the procedure for the transfer of the registration of a share in a patent)
Claiming damages for dissolved temporary injunction case (Judicial precedent in relation to damages for illegal law enforcement)


PAGE TOP