[Title of the invention] METHOD AND DEVICE FOR FORMING AND DISTRIBUTING REAL TIME INTERACTIVE CONTENTS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATION NETWORK AND INTERNET
Present Invention and Cited Invention differ from each other in that Present Invention sends “at least an identifier of a single receiver” in addition to the “expression of the second content”, whereas Cited Invention can select a “rank” in which the performer will participate by inputting the “rank” of a “performance group” (“Different Feature”). The issue is whether or not “at least an identifier of a single receiver” could have been easily conceived from “rank” of a “performance group”.
The court rescinded the JPO decision by stating that the JPO’s judgment on whether or not the Different Feature could have been easily conceived has an error.
[Title of the patent] “PROCESS FOR PACKAGING WINE IN ALUMINUM CANS”
[Key issue] Support requirement (Article 36, paragraph (6), item (i) of the Patent Act)
Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for rescission, stating that the Invention cannot be acknowledged as conforming to the support requirement since it cannot be recognized from the description of the Detailed Description of the Invention and the common general technical knowledge as of the priority date that a person skilled in the art could recognize that the problem to be solved by the Invention could be solved over the whole numerical ranges of a chloride level of less than 300 ppm and a sulfate level of less than 800 ppm that were encompassed into the Invention.
[Title of the patent] “Application generation support system and application generation support program”
[Key issue] Inventive step (Article 29, paragraph (2) of the Patent Act)
Court stated in the decision that there is no motivation to apply the well-known art to the cited invention in view of the purpose thereof.Source IPHC
The government made a final plan on March 10 for the revision of the Civil Procedure Code, including full online procedures for civil trials.
Under this revision, all documents for civil trials will have to be submitted online.
The government aims to achieve this revision in 2022.
Guidebook of the IP High Court is now available.
The guidebook contains interesting topics such as “System of IP-related Litigation”, “Management of Proceedings for Patent-related Cases” and “Statistics”.
[Suit against Invalidation Appeal Decision of Trademark Application]
[Key issue] “Likely to cause confusion” (Article 4, paragraph (1), item (xv) of the Trademark Act).
|Trademark at issue||Cited Trademark|
Considering the following facts, Court concluded that the Trademark “is likely to cause confusion”:
While the Trademark and the Cited Trademark are different in silhouette, and because of the presence or lack of a design that is outlined by a white line inside, and other features, the two trademarks are similar in the entire silhouette.
The Cited Trademark has become a well-known trademark that is widely recognized by traders and consumers in Japan as a trademark indicating clothing, caps, hats, and the like of the brand, “PUMA”, pertaining to the plaintiff’s business.
While the designated goods of the Trademark are “tee-shirts; headgear for wear”, the brand, “PUMA”, also covers products of T-shirts, caps, and hats…