À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Respect de la propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé Outils et services en matière d’intelligence artificielle L’Organisation Travailler à l’OMPI Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Avenir de la propriété intellectuelle Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Application des droits de propriété intellectuelle WIPO ALERT Sensibilisation Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Jeunesse Examinateurs Écosystèmes d’innovation Économie Financement Actifs incorporels Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme Musique Mode PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Données essentielles sur l’investissement incorporel dans le monde Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions WIPO Webcast Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Fonds de reconstruction Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Assistant de classification États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Postes de fonctionnaires Postes de personnel affilié Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Lois Traités Jugements Recherche par ressort juridique

Japon

JP093-j

Retour

1961(O)464, Minshu Vol.16, No.12, at 2321

Date of Judgment: December 7, 1962

 

Issuing Authority: Supreme Court

 

Level of the Issuing Authority: Final Instance

 

Type of Procedure: Judicial (Civil)

 

Subject Matter: Patent (Inventions)

 

Main text of the judgment (decision):

1.  The present final appeal shall be dismissed.

2.  Appellant shall bear the cost of the final appeal.

 

Reasons:

The reasons for the final appeal by the attorneys of the final appeal, ●●●●, ●●●●,

●●●●, D, and E are as described in the attached document.

 First point of the reasons for the final appeal

 The gist is that, regarding the summary of the present Patent No. 124514, the judgment in prior instance that excluded the forward-and-backward motion in relational movement between the axle and the vehicle body and moreover held that there was a causal relation between a difference in the radiuses of the two arc surfaces and an idling relation ignores the laws of physics and is unlawful.

 However, regarding the derailment preventing device of Appellant's patent, it is understood that the judgment in prior instance does not assert that the axle and the vehicle body do not move forward or backward, but only holds that, in view of the recitation in the description of the present patent and the like, the invention of the aforementioned patent was not made for the purpose of particularly allowing the forward-and-backward motion, and this point should not be taken up as the summary of the present patent invention. The aforementioned holding is sufficiently acceptable. Moreover, regarding the relationship between the idling hole of the vehicle body support base and the arc surface of the axle, as described also in the judgment in prior instance, the "detailed description of the invention" in the present patent description describes that "... by crimping the large-diameter arc surface on the upper part of the idling hole (5) onto the arc-shaped seat surface with a small diameter on the axle side, the relational movement gap between the axle (2) and the support base is sufficiently made to remain over to the lower part from both the right and left sides of the axle...", and there are no reasons that it should be considered to be unlawful as in the statement that the judgment in prior instance understood that the two have causal relations. The gist has no grounds.

 The second point of the same

 The gist states that the differences between the present invention and the re-corrected drawing (A) are only two points; that is, the sizes of the contact between the arc surfaces with different diameters and whether the gap between the two sides is sufficient or not, and it is not the problem of a technical idea or the working effect but is only a design problem. However, according to the explanation of the judgment in prior instance, the present patent is to prevent derailment by providing a sufficient gap between the axle and the idling hole of the vehicle body support base, while in the re-corrected drawing (A), the left and right gaps remain to the limit allowing vertical movement of the axle, and the derailment is to be prevented by allowing the vertical movement, and from the aforementioned re-corrected drawing (A), it can be understood that the present patent invention is based on another device. The purpose of the judgment in prior instance can be sufficiently accepted, and there is no unlawfulness in the judgment in prior instance as asserted in the statement.

 The third point of the same

 The gist blamed understanding of the judgment in prior instance that the "sufficient idling gap" in the present patent description has the meaning of the "idling gap with a considerable size". But as in the statement, there is no problem in understanding that the aforementioned gap has the meaning of the "considerable size" to such a degree that could make the relational movement between the vehicle body and the axle smooth and easy, and it cannot be understood that the judgment in prior instance has an intention to deny Appellant's assertion particularly on the point in the statement. The meaning of the judgment in prior instance is stated in comparison with the re-corrected drawing (A), and the right and left gaps in the re-corrected drawing (A) are smaller than in the case of the present patent and thus, in the case of the re-corrected drawing (A), it is not considered to prevent derailment by making the right and left movement easy and smooth.

 The gist seems to assert that, with the right and left gaps as in the re-corrected drawing (A), derailment cannot be prevented, but it cannot be understood from this fact, to the contrary, that the right and left gaps in the re-corrected drawing (A) are the gaps required for derailment prevention.

 The gist also asserts that whether the matter belonging to the scope of claims is publicly known or not is the problem that should be determined in a trial for patent invalidation by invoking the court precedent of the Daishin-in (Predecessor of the Supreme Court of Japan) and whether the matter belonging to the scope of the right is publicly known or not does not have to be defined in this case, and blames the judgment in prior instance for finalizing the scope of rights of the present patent by the publicly known matters at the time of 1929.

 Of course, unlike the trial for patent invalidation, effective establishment of the patent right is premised in the trial for confirmation of the scope of right and thus, in a lawsuit against the trial decision, too, whether the contents of the patent are publicly known or not cannot be argued. However, when considering what invention is granted a patent right, the technical level at that time has to be considered, because a portion which was publicly known at that time cannot be considered to be a novel invention since the patent right is granted to a novel industrial invention. In the case of the present case, too, according to the finding in the judgment in prior instance, to insert the axle into the idling hole of the vehicle body so as to prevent derailment without fixing the vehicle body and the axle as a derailment preventing device of a coal wagon or the like was asserted to be publicly known at the time of application of the present patent. Then, it should be understood that the present patent was granted to its unique structure as stated in the judgment in prior instance, and since the re-corrected drawing (A) is different from the present patent in the point as in the holding in prior instance, it is reasonable that the judgment in prior instance held that the aforementioned re-corrected drawing (A) does not belong to the scope of the present patent right, and the judgment in prior instance has no unlawfulness as in the statement.

 Therefore, pursuant to Articles 401, 95, and 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment shall be rendered as in the main test unanimously by all the judges.

(This translation is provisional and subject to revision.)