Skip to main content

Comment on “Maxacalcitol II”: Equivalent Infringement and File Wrapper Estoppel in Japan

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Supreme Court, 24 February 1998, Hei 6 (o) No.1083 (Japan) – Ball Spline Bearing Case, Saikō Saibansho Saibanrei Jōhō, http://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=374 (English translation) = 30 IIC p.433 (1999). See also IIC https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0714-2, footnote 2 for a list of the five criteria.

  2. 2.

    Osaka District Court, 27 May 1999, 1685 Hanrei Jihō 103 and Osaka District Court, 23 May 2000, court website.

  3. 3.

    Tokyo District Court, 28 January 1999, 1664 Hanrei Jihō 109 and Tokyo District Court, 30 June 30 1999, 1696 Hanrei Jihō 149.

  4. 4.

    Ryoichi Mimura, "Saikō saibansho hanrei kaisetsu minji ken" [Comments on Supreme Court Precedents in Civil Cases] 1998, p. 156; Seiji Ohno, "Kintōron ni okeru honshitutekibubun oyobi isikitekizyogai" ("The essential part and the intentional exclusion on the doctrine of equivalents"), Chizai Kanri Vol. 54, No. 9, 1345 (2004); Ryu Takabayashi, Hyōjun Tokkyohō (Standard Patent Law), 140, 2nd edn. (2005).

  5. 5.

    Seiji Ohno, ibid, p. 1351; Ryoichi Mimura, "Zadankai tokkyo claim kaishaku no ronten wo megutte" ("Symposium; Issues on claim interpretation"), p. 87 (2003).

  6. 6.

    Ryuichi Shitara, "Kurēmu kaisyakusyuhou no suii to tenbou" ("Transition and prospects on claim interpretation"), Kinyu shoji hanrei No. 1236, 56 (2006); Shuhei Shiotsuki, "Gijutsu hani to Kintō" ("The scope of claim and the doctrine of equivalents"), in: Chitekizaisanhō gendaishakai;Makino Toshiaki hanji taikankinen (IP law and modern society; Commemorative Issue on Judge Toshiaki Makino’s retirement),106 (1994); Yotarō Nunoi, "Kintōron no tekiyō yōken" ("Requirements for the application of the doctrine of equivalents"), Chizai Kanri Vol. 55, No. 13, 2023 (2005).

  7. 7.

    Nagoya District Court, 10 February 2003, 1880 Hanrei jiho 95, and Intellectual Property High Court, 25 September 2006, 2005 (Ne) 10045.

  8. 8.

    AIPPI Vol. 52, No. 7, 454.

  9. 9.

    Tokyo District Court 29 June 1999, 1686 Hanrei Jihō 111.

  10. 10.

    UK Supreme Court, Actavis et al. v. Eli Lilly et al., decision of 12 July 2017, (2017) UKSC 48.

  11. 11.

    UK House of Lords, Kirin Amgen v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, (2005) RPC 9; UK High Court, Improver Corp. v. Remington Consumer Products (1990) FSR 181.

  12. 12.

    Hugh Laddie, “Kirin-Amgen, The End of Equivalents in England?”, IIC 40(1):3–38 (2009).

  13. 13.

    German Federal Supreme Court, 10 May 2011, 2001 GRUR p. 701 – “Okklusionsvorrichtung”.

  14. 14.

    German Federal Supreme Court, 13 September 2011, 2012 GRUR p. 45 – “Diglycidverbindung”.

  15. 15.

    Thomas Kühnen, “Die Reichweite des Verzichtsgedankens in der BGH-Rechtsprechung zum Äquivalenzschutz”, 2013 GRUR p. 1086. Kühnen takes the view that equivalent infringement should only be denied where the patentee was forced to limit the claim by objections of prior art rather than out of his own volition.

  16. 16.

    Düsseldorf District Court, 15 September 2011, Case 4b O 216/08 – "Borreliosekarte" (unpublished).

  17. 17.

    Ryoichi Mimura, "Saikō saibansho hanrei kaisetsu minji ken" [Comments on Supreme Court Precedents in Civil Cases] 1998, p. 156.

  18. 18.

    Thomas Kühnen, “Die Reichweite des Verzichtsgedankens in der BGH-Rechtsprechung zum Äquivalenzschutz”, 2013 GRUR p. 1086.

  19. 19.

    Düsseldorf District Court, 15 September 2011, Case 4b O 216/08 – "Borreliosekarte" (unpublished).

  20. 20.

    Perhaps it would have been wise for the examiner of Eli Lilly’s patent to insist on an adaptation of the description, too, in order to have the broader mention of anti-folates deleted and exchanged by what the examiner thought was the inventive contribution, namely pemetrexed disodium.

  21. 21.

    Supra note 1.

  22. 22.

    Intellectual Property High Court, 24 December 2015 (2015 (Ne) 10031); Tokyo District Court, 23 April 2010 (2008 (Wa) 18566); Tokyo District Court, 22 January 2008 (2007 (Wa) 11981); Osaka District Court, 21 December 2006 (2004 (Wa) 3640); Tokyo District Court, 30 June 1999 (1696 Hanrei Jihō 149).

  23. 23.

    Intellectual Property High Court, 25 April 2013 (2012 (Ne) 10080); Osaka District Court, 3 October 2002 (2000 (Wa) 10170); Osaka District Court, 23 May 2000 (1995 (Wa) 1110); Osaka District Court, 27 May 1999 (1685 Hanrei Jihō 103).

  24. 24.

    Tetsu Iwatsubo, in: Shin Chukai Tokkyohō (New Commentary on Patent law) 2nd edn., p. 1278, second volume (2017).

  25. 25.

    Thomas Kühnen, Die Reichweite des Verzichtsgedankens in der BGH-Rechtsprechung zum Äquivalenzschutz, 2013 GRUR p. 1089.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hirotaka Nonaka.

Additional information

For a translation of the Maxacalcitol II decision into English by Hirotaka Nonaka, see this issue of IIC at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0714-2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nonaka, H. Comment on “Maxacalcitol II”: Equivalent Infringement and File Wrapper Estoppel in Japan. IIC 49, 621–629 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-018-0715-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Equivalent Infringement
  • Estoppel
  • Pemetrexed Disodium
  • Osaka District Court
  • Intellectual Property High Court