IP Updates

2022/06/03

[Title of the patent] “ANALYSIS METHOD OF HAIRCUT TECHNIQUES”

[Key issue] Statutory Invention (Article 2, paragraph (1) of the Patent Act)

 

A case in which the court ruled that the 1st to 4th steps of the invention at issue are estimation of a naturally-dried hairstyle by the use of knowledge of hair (1st step), selection of the area of head to be analyzed (2nd step), classification of the analysis subject’s hairstyle that was estimated by the analyst (3rd step) and derivation of an analysis for the haircut technique corresponding to the classification (4th step) and they are all conducted by the analyst in his/her mind; therefore the invention at issue cannot be said to be “a creation of technical ideas utilizing a law of nature” and does not fall under the “invention” stipulated by the Patent Act.

Source
2022/06/03

[Suit against Appeal Decision on Refusal of Design Patent Application]

[Key issue] Estoppel

A case in which the court rescinded a JPO’s decision, stating that it cannot be said that the fact that an applicant changes its allegation in the appeal seeking rescission of the JPO decision from its allegation made in the examination and trial stages is not allowed due to estoppel.

Source
2021/11/29

[Title of the patent] “Antipruritic agent”

[Key issue] Whether the application for registration of patent term extension (PTE application) falls under Article 67-3, paragraph (1), item (i) of the Patent Act

Court rescinded a JPO’s appeal decision which maintained an examiner’s decision to reject a PTE application.  The examiner’s reason for rejecting the PTE application was that the approved drug having nalfurafine hydrochloride as the active component was not contained in the patent invention having nalfurafine as the active component and therefore it could not be found that upon working the patent invention, it was necessary to receive the disposition specified by Cabinet Order as set forth in Article 67, paragraph (2) of the Patent Act.

Source
2021/11/29

[Title of the patent] “(Meth)acrylic acid ester copolymer”

[Key issue] Inventive step (Article 29, paragraph (2) of the Patent Act)

Court rescinded a JPO’s revocation decision, stating that the patent invention could have been easily conceived of by a person skilled in the art based on Cited Invention 1, since there was little motivation to improve Cited Invention 1 to solve the problem of the patent invention because the technical field and the problem are not necessarily the same for the patent invention and Cited Invention 1 and according to the disclosure of Citation 1 (Exhibit Ko 7), there is little reason for a person skilled in the art to select the two kinds of monomers, a monomer containing epoxy groups and a monomer containing hydroxy groups, from among multiple combinations disclosed in Citation 1.

Source
TOP