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

JP024-j

Back

2006(Ju)826, Minshu vol. 61, No. 8

Date of Judgment: November 8, 2007

 

Issuing Authority: Supreme Court

 

Level of the Issuing Authority: Final Instance

 

Type of Procedure: JudicialCivil

 

Subject Matter: Patent (Inventions)

 

Summary of the judgment (decision):

 

1. If the patent holder, or the licensee who was licensed by the patent holder, assigned the patented product in Japan, the patent regarding this patented product is exhausted since it has achieved its purpose by the assignment and thus, the effect of the patent does not extend to the use, assignment etc. of the patented product and therefore, the patent holder is not entitled to exercise the patent in relation to the patented product.


2. If the patented product, assigned in Japan by the patent holder or by a licensee who was licensed by the patent holder, has been modified or its components replaced, and as a result, can be regarded as a novel production of the patented product not identical to the original patented product, the patent holder is entitled to exercise their patent right over this patented product.


3. If the patented product, assigned in Japan by the patent holder or by a licensee who was licensed by the patent holder, has been modified or its components replaced, whether such modification etc. is a novel production of this patented product and whether the patent holder is subsequently allowed to exercise the patent right over it, should be determined by taking into consideration the characteristics of the patented product, the content of the patented invention, the manner of modification and the exchange of components as well as the circumstances involving the transaction, in a comprehensive manner.


4. If a patented product, which was assigned abroad by a patent holder or by those who can be equated with the patent holder in Japan, has been modified or its components replaced, and as a result, can be regarded as a novel production of the patented product, not identical to the original patented product, the patent holder is entitled to exercise the patent right over this patented product in Japan.


5. If a patented product which was assigned outside Japan by a patent holder or by those who can be equated with the patent holder in Japan, has been modified or its components replaced, whether such modification etc. is a novel production of the patented product and whether the patent holder is subsequently allowed to exercise the patent right over it, should be determined by taking into consideration the characteristics of the patented product, the content of the patented invention, the manner of modification and the exchange of components as well as the circumstances involving the transaction in a comprehensive way.


6. X, the patent holder of the ink cartridge (ink tank) for ink jet printers, put these cartridges (hereinafter, “X’s products”) on sale inside and outside Japan, Y imported cartridges in which X’s used products were cleaned and had ink freshly injected into them (hereinafter, “Y’s products”) and sold them in Japan. In such cases, if the manner of modification in the process of producing Y’s products is not only the supplement of the ink, but also involved modification, such as the modification of the cartridge itself, which had not been structurally designed for the refill of ink because this would decrease the printing quality and cause the cartridge to malfunction if, in order to enable the supplementing of the ink, the product comes to lack the structure, which is an essential part of the patented invention, ink is supplemented again and the effect and function of this patented invention has been newly enabled. Also considering the circumstances of trade involving ink cartridges, under such circumstances, Y’s product is a novel production of the patented product which is not identical to X’s product before modification, and should not be an object of restriction of the exercise of the patent right. Therefore, X is entitled to seek an injunction for the importation, sale etc. of Y’s products and to require destruction of these products on the basis of its patent.

 

(Translated by Sir Ernest Satow Chair of Japanese Law, University College, University of London)