{"id":426,"date":"2018-05-10T15:31:10","date_gmt":"2018-05-10T06:31:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ksilawpat.jp\/\/?post_type=updates&amp;p=426"},"modified":"2018-05-10T15:31:10","modified_gmt":"2018-05-10T06:31:10","slug":"supreme-court-judgement-scope-of-patent-whose-duration-was-extended","status":"publish","type":"updates","link":"http:\/\/ksilawpat.jp\/updates\/426\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court Judgement (scope of patent whose duration was extended)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court did not accept an appeal filed against a grand panel judgment of the IPHC, which judgment had dismissed a claim for an injunction against the manufacture and sale of a generic drug based on a drug-formulation patent right. The grand panel judgement became final and binding.<br \/>\nThe issue was the scope of the patent right whose duration was extended.<br \/>\nThe following is the grand panel judgement of the IPHC :<\/p>\n<p>www.ip.courts.go.jp\/app\/files\/hanrei_en\/136\/002136.pdf<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","updates_tag":[6],"class_list":["post-426","updates","type-updates","status-publish","hentry","updates_tag-news"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/ksilawpat.jp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/updates\/426","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/ksilawpat.jp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/updates"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/ksilawpat.jp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/updates"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/ksilawpat.jp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=426"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"updates_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/ksilawpat.jp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/updates_tag?post=426"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}