Newsletter (No.45) March 2025

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

*PATENT

[Patent★★] Patent Administrative Litigation “Aminosilane” Case: A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court recognized novelty and inventive step on the grounds that the substance name was listed in the cited reference, even though at the time of priority date, it was not possible for a person skilled in the art to manufacture or obtain the substance without trial and error.

Intellectual Property High Court Case No.10097 (Gyo-ke) 2022

[Patent★★] Patent Infringement Litigation “5-aminolevulinic acid phosphate salt” Case: A case in which the Tokyo District Court denied the eligibility of the cited invention yet approved the novelty of the present invention because the substance name of the invention was mentioned in the cited document, even though it was not feasible for a person skilled in the art at the priority date to carry out the invention without trial and error.

Tokyo District Court Case No.9716 (Wa) 2022

[Patent★] Patent Infringement Litigation “A composition containing 2,3-dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoropropane, 2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoropropene, 2-chloro-1,1,1, 2-tetrafluoropropane, or 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene” Case: A case in which the court held that for inventions that identify impurities or byproducts for which there is no description of effects in the specification, support requirements were violated due to the lack of a description of the issue, etc.

Intellectual Property High Court Case No.10094 (Ne) 2022

[Patent★] Patent Administrative Litigation “Gas-System Extinguishment Facility”: A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court reversed a JPO decision on patent opposition in which a sub-citation was excessively abstracted (high-level conceptualization), and recognized inventive step.

Intellectual Property High Court Case No.10009 (Gyo-ke) 2022

 *COPYRIGHT

 【Unfair Competition Prevention Act・Copyright Act★】A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court maintained the District Court’s decision, holding that although the form of the Plaintiff’s goods is recognized as indication of the Plaintiff’s goods, the form of the Plaintiff’s goods is not similar to that of Defendant’s goods; thus, manufacture and sale of the Defendant’s goods does not fall under Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 1 or 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act; furthermore, the form of the Plaintiff’s goods is not recognized as a copyrighted work, and therefore manufacture and sale of the Defendant’s goods does not fall under copyright infringement.

Intellectual Property High Court Decision of September 25, 2024 (Case No. 10111 [Ne] 2023―Presiding Judge Shimizu) 

*DESIGN

Simple introduction for many cases.

 *Unfair Competition Prevention ACT