{"id":592,"date":"2018-11-08T10:21:51","date_gmt":"2018-11-08T01:21:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ksilawpat.jp\/?post_type=updates&amp;p=592"},"modified":"2018-11-08T10:21:51","modified_gmt":"2018-11-08T01:21:51","slug":"courtdecision-repairing-sliding-door","status":"publish","type":"updates","link":"http:\/\/ksilawpat.jp\/updates\/592\/","title":{"rendered":"CourtDecision (repairing sliding door)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>[Title of the patent] \u201cMethod for repairing sliding door device and repaired sliding door device\u201d<\/p>\n<p>[Key issue] Literal infringement (Article 70 of the Patent Act)<\/p>\n<p>IP High Court judged in a patent infringement case that the appellant&#8217;s device did not belong to the technical scope of the patent invention, since the device did not satisfy &#8220;substantially the same height&#8221; of the phrase &#8220;an upper end of the behind wall and an upper end of a lower frame for repair have substantially the same height&#8221; of the patent claim, on which point the district court had made an opposite judgement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","updates_tag":[3],"class_list":["post-592","updates","type-updates","status-publish","hentry","updates_tag-court-judgment"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/ksilawpat.jp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/updates\/592","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=592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"updates_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/ksilawpat.jp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/updates_tag?post=592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}