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.)