Text size
S
M
L

Main content starts here.

Decisions

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) provides professional English translations of trial/appeal decisions, decisions on oppositions, and Hantei (advisory opinions on the scope of industrial property rights) categorized by type, field, or other attributes of a case that help in the understanding of the law and its operation, for the purpose of improving and enhancing the international reach and quality of information provided on industrial property rights applicable in Japan.

List

Table of Contents

Last updated documents (August 2020)

1. Patents and Utility Models

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Topics Abstracts
Appeal 2017-002758 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case a decision that denied inventive step, or the like, for the reason that it is natural to implement a configuration relating to different features not specified in the Cited Invention, for the Invention which handles a device-to-device (D2D) operation for a communication device.
Appeal 2017-015667 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step, Requirements for Claims/Description A case in which, in relation to an invention of an engine valve, it was judged that the invention violates the requirements for support and the like, on the ground that there is no limitation regarding what degree of iron is included, and the statement of "abrasion-resistant alloy including iron and Co base" of the Scope of Claims that can be understood as including an amount of iron that is different from a specific numerical value described in the description is one that exceeds the matters described or suggested in the Detailed Description of the Invention.
Appeal 2018-000993 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step Regarding an invention related to an autonomous small wireless device, the eligibility of Cited Invention newly cited in an appeal stage as a publicly known invention was examined in light of the appellant's allegation, and then the eligibility was recognized, and the inventive step thereof was denied on the basis of Cited Invention and Publicized prior art.
Appeal 2018-006136 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which inventive step is acknowledged on the ground that it cannot be said that the different feature related to arrangement positions of two minimum flow stops to a vane bearing ring between the Invention and the Cited Invention that are related to an exhaust-gas turbocharger is one that would have been achieved by a person skilled in the art with ease even if the described matters of other Cited Documents are put together.
Appeal 2018-009515 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Amendment, Inventive Step A case of a decision that dismissed the amendment on an Invention regarding a cold storage, for the reason that the amendment as of the demand for appeal, which includes an amendment of deleting a part of the matter specifying the invention, is not intended for restriction of the Scope of Claims in a limited way, or does not satisfy other purpose requirements of amendment, and denied inventive step of the Invention before the amendment.
Appeal 2018-010270 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Requirements for Claims A case of a judgment that the Invention regarding an electronic settlement system does not satisfy the provisions of Article 36(6)(i) of the Patent Act for the reason that the Invention cannot be acknowledged as solving the problem of the invention recognized from the Detailed Description of the Invention and exceeds a scope where a person skilled in the art recognizes a solution of the problem.
Appeal 2018-011115 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which, regarding an invention related to a muscle electrostimulation device, after stating that it is appropriate, from the statements of the problem to be solved and the effect of the Invention, to grasp the constitution of the Invention concerning a plurality of different features as a set of technologies, inventive step is acknowledged, for the reason that it cannot be said that the constitution concerning the relevant different features could have been conceived of by a person skilled in the art with ease from Cited Invention.
Appeal 2018-012724 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty A case in which the "ethylene bis-12-hydroxystearic acid amide" and polymers obtained in production examples, which are compounds described in the cited documents, are determined to be identical to the Invention, which is a compound described in Markush style, and thus the novelty of the Invention is denied.
Appeal 2018-012916 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which inventive step was acknowledged for an Invention characterized in that, in a composition comprising CRISPR/Cas9 nickase systems, double strand break is introduced by independently cleaving opposing chains of double-stranded sequences, as the target site comprises two nickase systems that exist in opposing chains in the double-stranded sequence.
Appeal 2018-013073 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Amendment, Inventive Step A case of a failure of the appeal judged through the following procedures: the amendment on the invention regarding a display panel as of the demand for appeal was dismissed, a final notice of reasons for refusal was issued, stating that the amendment before the demand for appeal is an addition of new matter and the Invention is lacking an inventive step, and the amendment in response thereto was dismissed as violation of purpose requirements.
Appeal 2018-013917 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty, Inventive Step A case of a decision that an Invention regarding a reflective polarizing film cannot be a use invention for the reasons that the Invention does not fall under discovering an unknown attribute of a material relating to the Cited Invention and that the Invention also does not fall under an invention based on finding of adaptability of the material in the Cited Invention for novel use.
Appeal 2018-015070 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Patent Eligibility Regarding the Invention relating to a set of a trust agreement, its technical significance is exclusively directed to mental activities themselves of a human, and cannot be said to be a law of nature or utilizing a law of nature, so that since it does not fall under "a creation of a technical idea utilizing a law of nature" as a whole, it was judged that it does not fall under an "invention".
Appeal 2018-015727 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Double Patenting A case in which, regarding inventions related to a game machine, in judgment on whether or not inventions according to two patent applications that were submitted on the same day are identical, judgment was made that the two inventions cannot be said to be identical, on the ground that it cannot be said that the constitution concerning the different feature is a very minor difference in a reification means for solving the problem to be solved, and the like.
Appeal 2018-016824 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step This is a case denying inventive step of an invention relating to a liquid food composition, because the oily component supposed in the Cited Invention is not limited to the predetermined fats and oils, waxes, fatty acids, and the like, which are excluded in the present invention, and in the Cited Invention a person skilled in the art could easily produce the liquid food composition according to the Invention.
Invalidation 2016-800057 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty, Inventive Step, Requirements for Claims This is a case for a patent of liquid-crystalline media, determining that while the invention of the present application after the amendment has novelty and inventive step, the case where a person skilled in the art could recognize solutions for solving the problems of the invention of the present application based on the present specification and the common general technical knowledge is limited to the case of the liquid-crystalline media based on mixtures with specific polar radicals, and therefore the invention without such a limitation was partially invalidated because of failure to comply with the support requirements.
Opposition 2018-700665 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case of a judgment that the Patent shall be maintained with acknowledgement of inventive step for the reason that the different features between the Invention and the Cited Invention relating to a blockchain have not been disclosed in other prior technical documents and they do not correspond to well-known arts before the filing of the application.
Opposition 2019-700459 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty, Inventive Step, Requirements for Claims In response to reason for rescission petitioned using non-patent literature as evidence, a cited invention is identified mainly based on the drawings to recognize novelty and inventive step, and it is judged there was no reason for a violation of clarity/support requirements petitioned using the drawings which the opponent produces for explanation.

2. Designs

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Abstracts
Appeal 2019-007567 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) The present application is an application relating to a partial design. The articles to the design of the design in the application and Cited Design are different in their usage and functions, and thus it cannot be said that they are similar to each other. Further, since neither "the usage and function" nor "the forms" of the part in the application and Cited Part are similar, it is judged that the design in the application is not similar to Cited Design.

3. Trademarks

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Abstracts
Appeal 2018-007479 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) A case where the trademark in an Application falls under Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Act, because the shape of the trademark in the Application is employed to enhance the function or the aesthetic impression of the product, and in addition, the patent right is granted to the shape of the trademark in the Application, and to protect the shape of the trademark in the Application according to the trademark right as exceeding the duration of the patent right causes a result of almost permanent monopoly of the shape and is an unreasonable restriction of free competition and violates public interests.
Appeal 2018-007529 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) A case where, since it is acknowledged that the trademark in the Application includes another person's name written in Alphabetic characters in its configuration and it is not acknowledged that the trademark in the Application is approved by the other person, the trademark in the Application falls under Article 4(1)(viii) of the Trademark Act.

Return to Table of Contents

Updated documents (July 2020)

1. Patents and Utility Models

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Topics Abstracts
Appeal 2017-000433 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case of denying inventive step for the reason that the "fixed information" relating to the Invention, which is a cash card-less provision system, can be an "account number" by conversion through decoding corresponding to encryption, and is not substantially different from the "temporary information" in the Cited Invention which is converted into "customer account information".
Appeal 2018-004523 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step Since the switches of Cited Invention are switches to be brought into the disengaged state, it is obvious that noise due to a parasitic capacitance is generated when the switches are in the off state, so that as a means for solving the obvious problem, it is easy to make the Invention by applying the well-known art described in Cited Document 2 to Cited Invention. Therefore, the inventive step thereof is denied.
Appeal 2018-008713 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Amendment, Inventive Step A case of a judgment that the Amendment at the time of the appeal is not intended for Article 17-2(5)(ii) of the Patent Act (restriction in a limited way), for the reason that the invention before the Amendment and the invention after the Amendment are not considered to solve the same problem, even though they belong to the same industrial field.
Appeal 2018-010473 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Amendment, Inventive Step A case in which, after declining the amendment made at the time of the request for appeal on the ground that the description of the scope of claims after amendment does not satisfy the independent requirements for patentability because it does not meet the requirement of Article 36(6)(ii) of the Patent Act, the Examiner's decision was cancelled for the reason that the inventive step of the invention before amendment cannot be denied.
Appeal 2019-003718 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty , Inventive Step This is a case related to a method for delegating control of vehicle functions to a wearable electronic device, for which novelty and inventive step has been denied on the ground that: the different feature between the Amended Invention and Cited Invention is not a substantive different feature; or, even if it is a substantive different feature, the constitution concerning the different feature would have been achieved by a person skilled in the art with ease from Cited Invention.
Appeal 2019-007148 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Requirements for Claims A case in which it was judged to violate the requirements for support because the Invention of "a varnish for forming charge-transporting thin-films" for which no material composition has been specified could not be deemed to be within the scope that a person skilled in the art could recognize that the problem to be solved by the invention could be solved, because the specification does not describe the relationship between the problem to be solved by the Invention and the means for solving the problem, and the relationship is also not clear from common technical knowledge as of the filing of the application.
Appeal 2019-013639 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty The case in which Different Features in medicinal use between the Invention (a medicament for use in slowing the progression of Parkinson's Disease) and the Cited Invention (a medicament for treating Parkinson's Disease) are examined from viewpoints of "patient groups" and "concrete use conditions such as dosage and administration", resulting in the denial of novelty of the Invention due to the conclusion of the comparison that the Different Features are not substantial differences.
Opposition 2018-700901 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty, Inventive Step, Priority A case in which some of the claims are denied novelty or inventive step by judging that a priority claim is not accepted on the basis of a motion on the validity of the priority claim and then examining the cited documents separately for those distributed before the priority date and those distributed after the priority date before the actual filing date.

2. Designs

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Abstracts
Appeal 2019-004619 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) It is recognized that an "ALUMINUM INGOT PACKED BODY" that is the article to the design in the application is one article having one specific purpose and function from a generally accepted perspective, and it is also recognized that the form thereof is single. Therefore, it is judged that the present application is an application related to one design and meets the requirement of Article 7 of the Design Act.

3. Trademarks

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Abstracts
Appeal 2018-003370 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Regarding the trademark in the application consisting solely of a color of orange, in addition to the fact that monopoly use by one private person is not appropriate, in a relationship with the designated services, and it cannot be recognized that it has obtained distinctiveness by the use of the appellant. Therefore, the trademark in the application is a trademark by which customers cannot recognize the services as those pertaining to a business of a particular person, and thus it falls under Article 3(1)(vi) of the Trademark Act.

Return to Table of Contents

back number

Return to Table of Contents

Note

[Last updated 28 August 2020]

Contact

Inquiry : Trial and Appeal Division, Japan Patent Office

FAX:+81-3- 3584-1987

E-mail: PA6B00@jpo.go.jp