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 (January 2021)

1. Patents and Utility Models

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Topics Abstracts
Appeal 2015-005914 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Requirements for Claims A case of a judgment that requirements for clarity are not satisfied for the reason that a technical matter specified by the matter specifying the invention regarding an audio encoder, "use a dependency between a selection of a transition slope and a selection of a transform length or a correlation between window shapes of adjacent frames by use of the variable-length-codeword", is unclear even by referring to the description of the specification, etc.
Appeal 2017-011029 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Inventive Step A case of a judgment that denied an inventive step for the reason that facilitation of media communication is a well-known problem and the idea of displaying an agent so as to open the mouth thereof in outputting a supposed answer, or the like, on a user terminal by applying Cited Invention 2 as means for solving the well-known problem to the Cited Invention could be easily conceived.
Appeal 2018-006610 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Inventive Step A case of an invention that relates to decreasing potential iatrogenic risks associated with influenza vaccines in which it is judged that the different feature from the Cited Invention, identification of potential microbial agents that might cause contamination, does not deliver any unexpected effect, a technical matter that a person skilled in the art can understand was recognized from the description in the Cited Document, and inventive step of the Invention was denied because of such technical matter.
Appeal 2018-009034 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Inventive Step A case of a decision, regarding an invention on a projective computing system, that denied inventive step on the basis of the Cited Invention which has approved the contents of a user interface introduced with a video image and subtitles in time series, from a video introducing the user interface.
Appeal 2018-009230 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Inventive Step A case in which, with respect to an invention that relates to a shock-absorbing device, the invention has been judged that it does not satisfy the requirement of inventive step on the ground that, regarding a constitution concerning limitation of a numerical value that is a different feature, it is judged that Cited Invention substantially has the relevant constitution, and, even if it is not so, it can be conceived of by a person skilled in the art with ease based on the common general technical knowledge and a matter that the significance of limitation of the numerical value is not indicated in the description of the present application.
Appeal 2018-013380 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Enablement Requirement, Requirements for Description A case where reasons for refusal on violation of clarity requirement and violation of enablement requirement was notified because methods for measuring "holding force (100/75)" and "elastic recovery (60/40)" in the invention related to a film composition are not described in the specification and cannot be recognized as matters of common technical knowledge, and the reasons cannot be resolved even in consideration of the Appellant's opinion.
Appeal 2018-015931 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Inventive Step A case in which, regarding the present invention that relates to a substrate holding device, the reason of the examiner's decision to reject is maintained after declining the amendment at the time of the request for appeal on the ground that, although the amendment is one for the purpose of restriction of the scope of claims, the amended invention does not meet the independent requirements for patentability, because the inventive step is not recognized.
Appeal 2019-002231 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Inventive Step A case of a decision that denied inventive step of the Invention, for the reason that the configuration where one operation unit is used for start and stop operation is only a well-known technique, in a technical field of air conditioner relating to the Invention, and that it is natural to perform start operation using an "operation stop button" in the Cited Invention based on the well-known technique.
Appeal 2019-004799 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Requirements for Description A case in which, after having judged that, on the ground that the problem to be solved alleged by the Appellant does not conform with the only embodiment described in the Detailed Description of the Invention, it cannot be acknowledged that it is described in the Detailed Description of the Invention, it is judged that the Invention does not satisfy the requirements for support.
Appeal 2019-005784 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Inventive Step A case where inventive step of the Invention relating to aluminum alloy-based composite materials is approved on the ground that the configuration of the Invention for Different Feature 1 is not disclosed or suggested in the Cited Documents and cannot be said to be a well-known art, and the Invention exerts an effect of excellent vibration-damping property as compared with the conventional materials, which could not be predicted by a person skilled in the art.
Invalidation 2016-800061 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Requirements for Claims Regarding the specifying matter that "an upper end of the back wall and an upper end of the lower frame for modification are almost the same height" of the invention relating to a modification method of a sliding door device, since it does not mean that the gist of the invention cannot be found, unless the allowable range of height difference is indicated, it is judged that the invention satisfies requirements for clarity.
Invalidation 2016-800111 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Inventive Step A case where an inventive step was denied, as a person skilled in the art could easily conceive of the number of hydration water molecules in Invention A1 within the rage recited in Invention 1 because, in light of the common general technical knowledge or well-known art at the time of the priority date of the present application, a person skilled in the art would have a motivation to try to prepare lanthanum carbonate hydrates with different numbers of hydration water molecules in Invention A1 in search of one having excellent physical properties.
Invalidation 2016-800120 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Correction A case in which, regarding inventions concerning a semiconductor device and a system, a request for correction that restricts "a plurality of wiring layers" in the Scope of Claims before correction to "a wiring layer comprising three plane layers as ground or power, and three signal layers for transmitting and receiving a signal" is approved for the reason that it does not introduce a new technical matter.
Invalidation 2017-800013 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Inventive Step A case where inventive step is denied because, with respect to the different feature of the viscosity range of soymilk fermented beverages, making a beverage as a soymilk fermented beverage having a viscosity at 7C of 5.4 to 9.0 mPa-s, which is a normal range for beverages accepted by consumers, is a design matter that could be appropriately determined by a person skilled in the art on the ground of the viscosities of soymilk beverages produced before and after filing of the Patent application.
Invalidation 2017-800060 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Correction A case in which regarding an invention on a financial product transaction management device, a financial product transaction management system, and a program, the requested correction was found to be a new matter and the novelty of the invention was denied; the decision was then revoked in the suit against the trial decision; trial was then proceeded again and resulted in that while approving the correction, the invention was found to satisfy novelty, and it was determined that there are no reasons for invalidation.
Invalidation 2018-800086 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Requirements for Claims A case of a judgment that an Invention regarding a massage machine satisfies requirements for clarity for the reason that it is reasonable to interpret the word "integrally" in the constituent component of the Invention, "sidewalls integrally formed", as indicating a unified and inseparable state, which is consistent with the description in the Patent specification and the drawings.
Opposition 2016-700992 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Correction A case of an invention relating to a polishing cushioning material in which, at the stage of a suit for cancellation, the Patentee makes an allegation that contradicts descriptions such as the description of the Patent, and ex officio notification of reasons for revocation to the effect that the description requirement is not satisfied is made; then, in response to this, a request for correction is performed, and, from the relevant correction and the descriptions of the written opinion, the patent is maintained on the ground that it cannot be said that the description requirements are not satisfied.
Opposition 2017-701191 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Enablement Requirement, Requirements for Claims /Description A case where it is determined that the Invention for an aqueous electrolyte composition does not meet the requirements of clarity, enablement, and support because, in the Detailed Description of the Invention, (i) the measurement conditions for "dynamic surface tension" cannot be grasped; and (ii) the Detailed Description of the Invention includes no description of what kind of means allows the aqueous electrolyte composition to have a dynamic surface tension≦ 35 mN/m.
Opposition 2019-700347 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Inventive Step A case in which, regarding the resin material of polarized sunglasses, inventions in which the glass transition temperature of the resin material on the convex side is lower than that on the concave side were judged to satisfy the requirement for inventive step because a heterogeneous effect was recognized, whereas patents for inventions in which the glass transition temperature of the resin material on the convex side is higher than that on the concave side have been revoked because the effect was within the range expected from the Cited Invention and did not meet the requirement for inventive step.
Opposition 2019-700541 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Correction In the notice of reasons for revocation (advance notice of decision), although it was judged that the application for the patent does not meet the requirements for division, and it was judged that there are reasons for revocation due to novelty and inventive step because the filing date is not retroactive, it was judged that the requirements for division were met and the reasons for revocation due to novelty and inventive step were solved due to corrections such as concretizing the constituent components.
Opposition 2019-700671 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Novelty, Inventive Step A case in which, regarding a moving image of evidence submitted by Patent Opponent, it is judged that it cannot be said that it was made available to the public in Japan or abroad through electric communication lines in advance of the application of the Patent, and, further, even if it were one that was made available to the public, the Patent Invention has novelty and inventive step.

2. Designs

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Abstracts
Invalidation 2018-880003 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) Although the articles to the design of the Registered Design and Design A-2 are identical, summarizing Different Features of the form, the effects on the determination of similarity are large, and overturning the aesthetic feelings that Common Features give to consumers, they impress that the Registered Design and Design A-2 are different, so that it is judged that the Registered Design is not similar to Design A-2.
Invalidation 2018-880005 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) A case of a decision that the Registered design cannot be considered to be similar to the Design A-3 for the reason that the different features between them have a large effect on determination of similarity and give the impression that the Solid-line part and the A-3 corresponding part are different from each other even through the Registered design and the Design A-3 are identical in article to the design and have common features in usage and position.

3. Trademarks

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Abstracts
Appeal 2017-002498 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) A case where, regarding the trademark in the Application consisting of only a single color, even if the Applicant uses the color of the trademark in the Application as a so-called corporate color, this cannot make it possible to determine that the trademark in the Application functions as a mark identifying the source, and it is determined that the trademark in the Application falls under Article 3(1)(iii) of the Trademark Act.
Opposition 2019-900178 Japanese (PDF) English (PDF) A case where a Trademark consists of Alphabetic characters of "UNI JAPAN". Because "UNIJAPAN" falls under "a famous mark indicating a non-profit organization undertaking a business for public interest", the Trademark falls under Article 4(1)(vi) of the Trademark Act, and it is not acknowledged that the Trademark is approved by the Opponent that is another person, it is determined that the Trademark falls under Article 4(1)(viii) of the Trademark Act.

Return to Table of Contents

Updated documents (November 2020)

1. Patents and Utility Models

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Topics Abstracts
Appeal 2018-001783 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Exception to lack of novelty of invention, Novelty, Inventive Step A case of a judgment, regarding the Cited Document for which an application for exception to lack of novelty has been filed, that the application for exception cannot be approved, by recognizing the day on which the Cited Document came to fall under a "distributed publication" on the basis of the results of ex officio examination of evidence.
Appeal 2018-002048 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Patent Eligibility A case in which, with respect to the Invention that is of image coded data associated with the standard specifications of moving image coding, it was judged that, on the ground that it cannot be said that information processing based on a data structure between data elements is concretely realized, the Invention does not fall under "a creation of technical ideas utilizing a law of nature" stipulated in the main paragraph of 29(1) of the Patent Act.
Appeal 2018-014162 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case of a judgment that approved an inventive step for the reason that there is no cause or motivation to implement the configuration relating to the Invention by using a message regarding the "rate" of "data request" to the "destination" in place of a BCN message to be transmitted to the "source" in the Cited Invention.
Appeal 2018-015362 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Amendment, Inventive Step This is a case of appeal against the examiner's decision to dismiss an amendment, and on the premise of revoking the decision to dismiss amendment, the reasons for refusal of lack of inventive step are notified, and then regarding the present invention amended as a response to the notice of reasons for refusal, the decision to dismiss the amendment was revoked and the demand was rejected by denying inventive step.
Appeal 2019-001026 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Amendment, Inventive Step Regarding the description in the Specification, "a bulk metallic glass-based material having an elastic limit of 2% or more" of the Amended Invention, even though the Cited Document describes that a metallic glass has a relatively high elastic limit, the specification as "2% or more" of the Amended Invention is merely the optimization of the numerical range, and therefore inventive step thereof is denied.
Appeal 2019-001485 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Amendment, Novelty A case in which the novelty of the Invention is denied because the matter of "for reducing the frequency of proinsulin-reactive CD8 T cells" in the Invention is not a substantial different feature between the Invention and Cited Invention, which relate to compositions for treatment or prevention of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM).
Appeal 2019-002309 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Requirements for Claims A case in which it has been judged that the Invention is not clear on the ground that "the reference face" according to the Invention is not clear even if reference is made to the statements of the description, etc. and the foreign language document, and, further, the statements of the priority certificate, and, in addition, Appellant's allegation that it indicates general "reference face" in the technical field of optics causes discrepancy with the statements of such as the description.
Appeal 2019-003990 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step An invention relating to a solar cell, in which an inventive step is denied since a numerical limitation related to the different feature is extremely likely to be satisfied as a result of applying the well-known matter to Cited Invention, and no particular critical significance is found in the numerical limitation.
Appeal 2019-004288 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case of denying inventive step for the reasons that the invention regarding the crystalline polymorphism of a compound is identical to the cited invention in that they are solid compounds, and is different from the cited invention in terms of whether or not the powder X-ray diffraction pattern is described; the crystallization method has been commonly adopted; and there is no remarkable effect due to crystallization.
Invalidation 2016-800109 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty, Inventive Step, Requirements for Claims/Description A case in which, regarding "zero-cross time" in the patent invention of the case related to a tab terminal for an electrolytic capacitor, the correction has not been acknowledged on the ground that to make "zero-cross time" be of a value of 2.30 sec. or less is a matter that is not described or suggested in the Description, etc., and, therefore, the correction to specify only the upper limit of "zero-cross time" does not comply with the provision of Article 126(5) of the Patent Act which is applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 134-2(9) of the Patent Act.
Invalidation 2018-800058 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Amendment, Requirements for Claims A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court also supported a trial decision, regarding a Patent for a fluid pressure cylinder, that the amendment at the time of examination to delete a matter specifying the invention regarding a fluid pressure introduction passage and to introduce a new matter specifying the invention regarding an elastic member falls under addition of new matter, and that the Patent invention also falls under violation of requirements for support.
Invalidation 2018-800073 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Novelty, Inventive Step A case in which novelty was denied for the reason that there is no difference between the Patent invention relating to a seat-covering material and the Invention of Demandant's Exhibit recognized by the facts found by inspection and the description of notarial documents and that the Invention of Demandant's Exhibit had been publicly known or publicly used before the filing of the application.
Invalidation 2018-800153 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Claimant Eligibility, Novelty, Inventive Step, Enablement Requirement, Requirements for Claims Regarding an invalidation trial demanded by one of co-owners of the patent right, at the end of the trial, the Demandant has a relationship of pending litigation with the Demandee regarding the patent right, and the Demandant has a legal interest in invalidating the Patent. Therefore, it is judged that he/she is "an interested party" and has eligibility as a demandant.
Opposition 2018-700579 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Correction、Secret Prior Art, Inventive Step, Requirements for Claims An opposition case for the invention of a hot melt adhesive, which is a case of revoking a patent because the correction of changing "tackifying agent" to "petroleum resin" does not correspond to one intended for "restriction of the scope of claims", in that specifying the invention by "tackifying," which is the "property of a substance," is "deleted," and the correction is not accepted due to changing the scope of claims.
Opposition 2018-700806 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step Although the correction "disclaimer" is made on the invention relating to an image display device, in the Cited Invention, the case where an angle formed by an orientation main axis of a scattering prevention film and an orientation main axis of a base film is set outside a specified angle range value, is not excluded, and the inventive step thereof was denied because it could have been appropriately conceived by a person skilled in the art to set the angle outside the specified angle range value in the Cited Invention.
Opposition 2018-700912 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Requirements for Claims A case determining that, with respect to the invention of a concrete composition, the reasons for revocation, such as lack of novelty and inventive step, are resolved by limiting the use of the concrete composition to spray concrete, but the invention of a method for manufacturing a concrete composition in which the value of the "bulk specific gravity" of fly ash raw powder contained in the concrete composition serves as the matter defining the invention violates the support requirement.
Opposition 2019-700116 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Inventive Step A case in which inventive step was denied on the ground that, based on a common problem to be solved as improvement of corrosion resistance and a common constitution as an electro less plating film, a P content of an Ni-P base electro less plating layer of a surface layer of an impeller that uses carbon steel as a base material in Sub-Cited Document can be applied to an Ni-P base electro less plating layer of a surface layer of an impeller using Al and the like as a base material in the Primary Cited Document.

2. Designs

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Abstracts
Appeal 2019-007393 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) Regarding the image design of "Electronic Computer with Ranking Display Function" relating to a plurality of items, it is unclear what specifically the ranking will be displayed for, so that against the examiner's decision that the design cannot be specified, the image part in the application specifically displays an image provided for the operation of an article, and it is judged that it falls under an industrially applicable design.

3. Trademarks

Types JPO Docket Numbers Decisions
(JP)
Decisions
(EN)
Abstracts
Appeal 2018-007967 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) A case where, since the designated goods of the present application and the seeds and seedlings of a variety that has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Plant Variety Protection and Seed Act are similar to each other, when the trademark in the Application is used for its designated goods, traders may wrongly recognize and confuse the source of the goods with the source of the cited mark, whereby the trademark in the Application falls under Article 4(1)(xiv) of the Trademark Act.
Invalidation 2018-890041 Japanese(PDF) English(PDF) A case where, because the Demandee filed an application for trademark registration while taking advantage of a trademark of which a license was granted from the Demandant not being registered regarding Class No. 5 "Dietary supplements for humans.", it should be said that the trademark of the Demandant was plagiarized, and there had been matters which significantly lacked social appropriateness in the process of application for registration of the trademark in question, and the Trademark falls under Article 4(1)(vii) of the Trademark Act.

Return to Table of Contents

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 20 January 2021]

Contact

Inquiry : Trial and Appeal Division, Japan Patent Office

FAX:+81-3- 3584-1987

E-mail: PA6B00@jpo.go.jp