Filter

Open

04

NOV

2021

Newsletter (No.16) November, 2021

This Newsletter summarizes legal information updated in the latest one month.

*PATENT

[Patent★★] “Interleaving Paper for Glass Plates” Case: A case in which the court deemed that the invention of the prior application falls under an “invention” which is appropriate material as a cited invention (Article 29-2 of the Patent Act). If an invention lacks concreteness, or technical content of an invention is insufficiently disclosed even taking into consideration the common general technical knowledge of a person ordinarily skilled in the art, it does not fall under the “invention” and does not have an effect of excluding the later application provided for in this Article

-IP High Court 2020 (Gyo-ke 10005) on November 10, 2020 (Presiding Judge TAKABE)-

PATENT”BEAUTY INSTRUMENT” Patent Infringement Case: A case in which the Tokyo District Court found that the defendant’s product, even after a design change, constitutes patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

Tokyo District Court Case No. 2017 (Wa) 32839 of March 19, 2020 (Presiding Judge Koichi TANAKA)

PATENT”GAME PROGRAM” Case (GREE): A case in which the IP High Court revoked a decision of the Japan Patent Office, finding that it is not appropriate to determine, without specifying the reasoning conducted by using known technology etc., that the invention in question could be easily conceived by a person skilled in the art because the constitution related to the difference is “mere arrangement for a game”.

IP High Court Case No. 2019 (Gyo-ke) 10085 of June 4, 2020 (Presiding Judge TSURUOKA)

*TRADEMARK

Trademark Act ★★ A case in which the Court found, with respect to the trademark “HIRUDOMILD” consisting of common characters (the “Trademark”), that the Trademark is considered as a composite trademark composed of the parts “HIRUDO” and “MILD”, and when compared to the cited trademark “Hirudoid” (the “Cited Trademark”), the “HIRUDO” part is similar thereto (falls under Article 4, Paragraph 1, Item 11 of the Trademark Act), stating that it is permissible to determine the similarity by separating the parts “HIRUDO” and “MILD” and observing only the “HIRUDO” part as an essential part of the Trademark, and thus revoked a trial decision of the Japan Patent Office which determined the registration of the Trademark to be maintained on the grounds that the Trademark was not similar to the Cited Trademark (did not fall under Article 4, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Trademark Act).

-IP High Court Case No. 2019 (Gyo-ke) 10085 of June 4, 2020 (Presiding Judge TSURUOKA)-

Hideki Takaishi (Attorney at Law & Patent Attorney) (Publishing Manager)

Nakamura & Partners

Room No. 616, Shin-Tokyo Building, 3-3-1 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku,

E-mail: nakamura_and_partners---magazine@nakapat.gr.jp

*The content of this newsletter provides general information and is not legal advice.

*Nakamura & Partners was founded in 1914 and provides comprehensive IP-related services both domestically and internationally as an international IP law firm.

Related Newsletters

06
OCT
2021
06
OCT
2021
Newsletter (No.15) October, 2021 This Newsletter summarizes legal information updated in the latest...

Read More

07
SEP
2021
07
SEP
2021
Newsletter (No.14) September, 2021 This Newsletter summarizes legal information updated in th...

Read More

02
JUL
2021
02
JUL
2021
Newsletter (No.12) June, 2021 This Newsletter summarizes legal information updated in the latest on...

Read More

14
JUN
2021
14
JUN
2021
Newsletter (No.11) June, 2021 This Newsletter summarizes legal information updated in the latest...

Read More

11
MAY
2021
11
MAY
2021
Newsletter (No.10) May, 2021 We are now introducing practical legal information on our homepage ...

Read More

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3