About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Finance Intangible Assets Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

Japan

JP057-j

Back

1988 (Gyo-Tsu) 10, Minshu Vol. 46, No. 4

Date of Judgment: April 28, 1992

 

Issuing Authority: Supreme Court

 

Level of the Issuing Authority: Final Instance

 

Type of Procedure: Judicial(Administrative)

 

Subject Matter: Patent(Inventions)

 

Summary of the judgment (decision):

 

1. In cases where a judgment to revoke a JPO decision invalidating a patent was rendered on the grounds that a person ordinarily skilled in the art cannot be considered to have been able to easily make the invention based on a specific cited document, and the JPO issued another decision, subject to the binding force of said judgment, to the effect that a person ordinarily skilled in the art cannot be considered to have been able to easily make the invention based on the same cited document, in an action for the revocation of the second JPO decision, the submission of any allegation or proof arguing that a person ordinarily skilled in the art would have been able to easily make the invention based on the same cited document should not be allowed.

2. In cases where a judgment to revoke a JPO decision invalidating a patent was rendered on the grounds that a person ordinarily skilled in the art cannot be considered to have been able to easily make the invention based on a specific cited document, even when, in the second trial procedure, a party alleged that a person ordinarily skilled in the art would have been able to easily make the invention based on other cited documents, etc. in addition to said specific cited document, if the party did not mean to allege that a person ordinarily skilled in the art would have been able to easily make the invention based on these additional cited documents, etc. alone, or to allege that a person ordinarily skilled in the art would have been able to easily make the invention based on the additional cited documents, etc. in combination with said specific cited document that had been examined in the previous action, the second JPO decision to the effect that a person ordinarily skilled in the art cannot be considered to have been able to easily make the invention based on said specific cited document and the additional cited documents, etc. should be held to have been issued subject to the binding force of the judgment of revocation, and cannot be held to be illegal in an action to seek revocation of the second JPO decision.