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 & Judgments 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 at WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets Future of IP 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 Youth Examiners 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 Music 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 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 Staff Positions Non-staff Positions Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

Japan

JP075-j

1967(Gyo-Tsu)28, Minshu Vol. 30, No. 2, at 79

Machine translation
close
tranlsation detector

Date of Judgment: 10.3.1976

 

Issuing Authority: Supreme Court

 

Level of the Issuing Authority: Final Instance

 

Type of Procedure: Judicial (Administrative)

 

Subject Matter: Patents (Inventions)

 

Main text of the judgment (decision):

Point 5 in the Statement of Reasons for a Jokoku -Appeal is hereby ruled to be groundless.

 

Reasons:

Regarding point 5 in the Statement of Reasons for a Jokoku -Appeal presented by Attorney Iwao Niinaga:

The essence of the Statement of Reasons for an Appeal is as follows: regarding the facts asserted by the appellants before the Patent Office and the court below, the original judgment that does not show judgment in this respect on the ground that the said facts were not put for examination and judgment before the Patent Office is illegal, representing a misapplication of the law and goes against the Supreme Court precedent (the Judgment of the Second Petty Bench upon the said agency Case 1951 (O) No. 745 rendered on October 16, 1953, Saibanshu-Minji No. 10, at 189).

According to the old Patent Law (Law No. 96 of 1921; hereinafter referred to as "the law") applicable to this case, it is stipulated that the stake-holder who claims that there is a cause for invalidating a particular patent may seek an appeal to the determination for invalidation of the relevant patent (Article 84), that with regard to a determination reached in the said appeal to the determination or the result of examination of the relevant application, the party subject to such decision or examination may seek an appeal to the determination (Article 109), and on the other hand, that a lawsuit regarding a matter which can be addressed by seeking an examination or appeal to the determination can be instituted only as a lawsuit against an determination of the appeal reached in the appeal to the determination (Article 128-2, Paragraph 4), AND, that a lawsuit against an determination of the appeal reached in an appeal to the determination shall fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tokyo High Court (Paragraph 1 of the said article). Furthermore, it is stipulated that when there are found to be grounds for an action entered in the said lawsuit, the court is to revoke the relevant the determination, and once the said revocation is effected, the appeal to the determination in charge of the relevant appeal to the determination are required to conduct an examination and reach a decision (Article 128-5). In these respects, it is recognized that in the case where an administrative disposition, namely, a decision to grant a patent or a decision of refusal through examination was wrongly effected, the law calls for the completed procedures for the examination and appeal to the determination (in the case of an examination, only the appeal to the examination) presided over by appeal examiners with expertise and experience in any case to be used as the procedures for redressing such disposition, unlike the case with general administrative dispositions, while prescribing that a lawsuit for revocation may be instituted, not against a decision to grant a patent or a decision of refusal through examination as the original disposition, but against a determination reached in the appeal to the determination, and in the said lawsuit, the law limits the point at issue to nothing but the legality or illegality of the said determination while allowing the propriety of a patent granted or an application rejected through examination to be indirectly challenged only from the perspective of whether a determination reached in the appeal to the determination is proper or not.

Next, in reference to the procedures for the appeal to the determination or examination set forth by the law, concerning an action seeking an appeal/trial to invalidate a particular patent, it is stipulated that a specified form of written motion for an examination describing a stated case and reasons shall be filed (Article 86), that concerning the written motion filed, a duplicate thereof shall be served on the respondent to give an opportunity to file a written statement of defense (Article 88, paragraph 1), that in an appeal, reasons other than ones stated in the written motion may be also examined, but in such case, the parties should be given opportunities to state their cases with regard to such reasons (Article 103), while the law lays down procedures similar to civil proceedings, including exclusion, challenge of appeal examiner(s) involved in the appeal/trial (Article 91 to Article 96), an open oral examination system (Article 97), participation of stake-holders (Article 98, 99), examination of evidence (Article 100) and so on, and prescribes that these provisions shall be applied mutatis mutandis to the appeal. In this respect, it is clear that as far as an appeal/trial for invalidation of a patent is concerned, the law requires the cause for invalidating the patent contested therein to be specified and clarified for the parties, and as far as the procedures for the examination are concerned, the law employs such structured procedures that the said specified cause for invalidating the relevant patent is contested in offense and defense, AND the appeal examiners examine and judge nothing but this point at issue; it is understood that Article 117 of the law providing that "whenever a finalized appeal/trial decision regarding a patent or the validity of permission under Article 53 is kept on the registry, no one can bring an action to seek the same appeal/trial based on the same facts and the same evidence," because along with the said structured procedures, it intends to give a finalized appeal/trial decision the effect of non bis in idem in a practical sense with regard to matters actually judged therein. In addition, the reason why the law prescribes that a lawsuit for revocation of a determination reached in an examination shall fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tokyo High Court while allowing for one less instance in fact-finding proceedings, must rest on the grounds that with regard to the existence/non-existence of the relevant cause of invalidation, thorough examination was completed with the participation of the parties during the examination and the examination for appeal proceedings.

It should be construed as the purport of the law that in referring to the structure and nature of an opposition system and appeal/trial proceedings concerning patent-related decisions set forth by the law as described above, in the case of a lawsuit for revocation of a determination reached in an appeal to the determination for invalidation of a patent where the judgment thereof is contested in terms of illegality, the issue that was actually contested in the relevant appeal/trial proceedings and related to a specific cause for invalidation examined and judged should be exclusively the subject matter for the appeal/trial examination while other causes for invalidation cannot be asserted as reasons for contending the illegality of the relevant appeal/trial decision in the said lawsuit and brought before the court for judgment.

Then, referring to the specification of the cause for invalidation as described above, each item of Article 57, Paragraph 1 of the law enumerates the cause of invalidation of a patent in abstract terms, but each cause enumerated thereunder is different in nature and substance as the cause of invalidation of a patent, so it is appropriate to deem each of the causes as an independent and separate cause of invalidation; furthermore, as to item 1 of the said paragraph of the said article, each ground of violation of the provisions enumerated therein is different in nature and substance, again, it is appropriate to construe that each ground of violation of the provisions should involve a different cause of invalidation. However, whether or not it is sufficient to specify the cause of invalidation in abstract terms solely relying on the above-described items and/or cases in violation of the provisions should be carefully determined, in view of the mechanism of the law governing the patent system, especially with consideration to the purport of Article 117 of the law, which requires the effect and scope of non bis in idem in connection with a finalized appeal/trial decision to be limited by baring the same facts and evidence therefrom.

In our opinion, the fundamental element of patentability are to fall under "a novel industrial invention" set forth in Article 1 of the law, and in deciding whether a patent is granted or not, or whether a granted patent is invalid or not, is a matter of the most frequent controversy, after all, whether the requirement under the said article is met or not, particularly, whether the relevant invention is "novel" or not. Article 4 of the law defines the "novelty" of an invention described above as not falling under "the thing publicly-known or publicly used in the country before the application" or "the thing described in a publication circulated in the country before the application to the extent that it is easy to implement." In other words, it is stipulated that whether or not a particular invention falls under "being novel" defined in the law (hereinafter referred to as "novelty") should always be considered and judged in comparison with "the thing publicly-known or publicly used" or the thing that has appeared in publicly-known publications (hereinafter referred to as "publicly-known fact") of the time. However, such publicly-known facts exist over a wide spectrum so that it is extremely difficult to grasp all publicly-known facts to be compared in connection with the invention at issue, but also even if there exist publicly-known facts with such bearing, because technical features embodied therein are of wide variety, it is necessary to examine the invention at issue in one-to-one comparison with each of these publicly-known facts for judgment in terms of novelty. It is understood that the law sets forth the systems and procedures in relation to the above-described uniquely structured examination, appeal/trial for invalidation, and appeal to the determination because it takes into account such difficulty and specialty inherent in judging a particular invention in terms of its novelty. It can be understood that the purport of the said provisions of Article 117 of the law reflects the necessity of judging a particular invention to be novel or not in comparison to practical technical details embodied in specific publicly-known facts cited as evidence on a one-by-one basis. Accordingly, as it requires that the cause of invalidation be a definitely specified one and for example, it should be recognized that a claim for invalidation by comparison to a specific publicly-known fact and a claim for invalidation by comparison to other publicly-known facts constitute different causes, even if both equally address the novelty of an invention.

For the above reasons, in a lawsuit for revocation of a determination, any cause for invalidation by comparison to publicly-known facts that were not examined and judged in the course of the appeal to the determination cannot be cited as a reason for contending the relevant decision to be illegal or upholding it as legal. The former precedents of this court that are contrary to this opinion (the Judgment of the Third Petty Bench upon Case 1958 (O) No. 567 rendered on December 20, 1960, Minshu Vol. 14, No. 14, at 3103; the Judgment of the First Petty Bench upon Case 1964 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 62 rendered on April 4, 1968, Minshu Vol. 22, No. 4, at 816) should be changed. Further, the same holds true for the specification of the reason for a decision of refusal as the specification of the cause of invalidation (see Article 72 of the law with regard to notice on reasons for refusal and Article 113, Paragraph 1 of the law with regard to application mutatis mutandis thereof in Kokoku appeals/trials). Hence, regarding a lawsuit for revocation of an appeal/trial decision reached in a Kokoku appeal/trial against the decision of refusal, it should be held true that specific, concrete reasons for refusal which were not judged in the said appeal/trial decision cannot be asserted in a lawsuit. Therefore, the Judgment of the Second Petty Bench upon Case 1951 (O) No. 745 rendered on October 16, 1953, Saibanshu-Minji No. 10, at 189 should be changed as well.

When this case is considered from the above viewpoint, it is found that some of the facts that the Appellant argues are illegal in the Statement of Reasons for a Jokoku-Appeal because the court below failed to examine and judge the said facts are concerned with an article/item different from the article/item enumerating the cause of invalidation that was examined and judged in the said appeal/trial decision, and the rest are concerned with a violation of Article 1 of the law, but as the Appellant contends over publicly-known facts different from the publicly-known fact that the said appeal/trial decision determined to be the cause of invalidation, we uphold as proper the court below ruling that with regard to the propriety of the said appeal/trial decision, the claim based on these facts, that is, different causes of invalidation from the ones examined and judged therein must not be taken into account, we sustain that the original judgment is free from illegality opposed to the argument, and thus the Appellant's case cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the judiciary opinion is unanimously formed and the judgment rendered as the main text.

(This translation is provisional and subject to revision.)