[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)
This is the original judgement of a recent IPHC Ground Panel case of which judgment was delivered on June 7, 2019.
Source IPHCThe JPO published a report of the current status of AI related applications in Japan and overseas.
According to the report, the number of applications related to AI technique has rapidly increased since 2014.
The number of applications in the US and China is outstanding.
Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. entered into a cross-licensing agreement on LED technique with Citizen electronics Co., Ltd.
Source TOYOTA GOSEI (Japanese)Five groups including JASRAC (Japanese Society for Rights of Authors) submitted three resolutions which were adopted at the CISAC General Agency to the Agency for Cultural Affairs. One of the resolutions is about private copy remuneration in Japan which urges the government of Japan “to expeditiously establish a new, functional, updated, modern and equitable private copying remuneration system”.
Source JASRACJapan Fair Trade Commission published the result of an actual condition survey on exploitation of intellectual property and know-how of Japanese makers.
According to the survey, in 726 cases among about 16,000 answers, makers answered that their IP, know-how, client list, etc. had been exploited by big companies which had abused their superior conditions to the makers.
Japan Fair Trade Commission announced that it would take strict measures against such cases which violate the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade or the Subcontract Act.
The Ground Panel has rendered a judgment.
This judgment clarifies the criteria for deciding the amount of damage
compensation.
An English translation of the judgment will be soon published.
Claim for damages for unfair competition
[Key issue] “Unfair competition” pursuant to Article 2, paragraph (1), item (ii) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.
Court stated in the decision “…Article 2, paragraph (1), item (ii) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act does not require an act of unfair competition to be the ‘creation of confusion with another person’s goods or business.’ This is because the purport of item (ii) of the same paragraph is in preventing free riding by use of the customer attracting power of a famous indication of goods, etc., as well as in preventing the source-identifying function and the quality guarantee function from being harmed due to dilution. As such, if an indication which is identical or similar to another person’s famous indication of goods, etc. is used in a manner that accomplishes the functions of indicating the source of goods and of distinguishing said goods from the goods of other persons, such use is acknowledged as the use as an indication of goods, etc., and whether or not confusion is created among consumers as to the source shown by said indication does not directly affect this point.”
Source IPHC