IP Updates

2019/09/26

[Title of the patent] “Carbon dioxide-containing viscous composition”

[Key issue] Criteria for deciding the amount of damage compensation (Article 102, paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Patent Act)

A recent IPHC Ground Panel judgment delivered on June 7, 2019.

Source IPHC
2019/09/26

[Title of the patent] “ANTIGEN-BINDING MOLECULE CAPABLE OF BINDING TO TWO OR MORE ANTIGEN MOLECULES REPEATEDLY”

[Key issue] Enablement requirement (Article 36, paragraph (4), item (i) of the Patent Act)

Court stated in the decision that “it cannot be said that the Detailed Description of the Invention provides a description to the extent that allows a person ordinarily skilled in the art to implement the whole range of pharmaceutical composition encompassed by the invention.”

Source IPHC
2019/09/26

[Title of the patent] “ANTIGEN BINDING PROTEINS TO PROPROTEIN CONVERTASE SUBTILISIN KEXIN TYPE 9 (PCSK9)”

[Key issue] Inventive step, support requirement and enablement requirement (Article 29, paragraph (2); Article 36, paragraph (4), item (i); and Article 36, paragraph (6), item (i) of the Patent Act)

Regarding the support requirement issue, Court stated in the decision “A person ordinarily skilled in the art who read the description could recognize that various neutralizing antibodies competing with the reference antibody included in the scope of the claims of the Corrected Invention 1 (Claim 1) other than neutralizing antibodies competing with the reference antibody in the description might be obtained by repetitively implementing the production and selection of immunized mouse in accordance with a procedure and a schedule of immunization program in the description, the hybridoma generation in which a selected immunized mouse is used, and a screening and an epitope binning assay for identifying an antibody that strongly blocks a binding interaction between PCSK9 and LDLR in the description from the start.  Therefore, it is recognized that Corrected Invention 1 (Claim 1) conforms to the support requirement.” and maintained the patent.

Source IPHC
2019/07/29

Confirmation of the non-existence of right to demand compensation for damages based on patent right

[Key issue] International jurisdiction and benefit of action (Article 3-2, paragraph (3), Article 3-3, item (viii), Article 3-6, Article 3-9, Article 38, first half of the Code of Civil Procedure)

A case in which, with regard to a claim for confirmation of the non-existence of right to demand compensation for damage based on a patent right between the parties concerned including foreign corporations among both the appellants/appellees, the jurisdiction of the Japanese courts is acknowledged and then, the action was dismissed since the change of the action of adding the product to be the target of the action is not allowed, and the action lacks benefit of action and is illegal.

Source IPHC
TOP