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.