[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-663334-105":59,"doc-detail-663334-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","judgment-upon-the-permissibility-of-asserting-a-cause-for-invalidating-a-patent-point-5-ruled-to-be-groundless","Judgment upon the permissibility of asserting a cause for invalidating a patent - Point 5 ruled to be groundless","","Judgment concerns whether a party may assert a patent-invalidating cause based on publicly known facts that were not presented for appeal/trial examination and decision. Under the Old Patent Law, the document addresses how causes for invalidation may be brought, the relationship between appeals to determination and examination, and the limits on initiating litigation. The Grand Bench rules the argument grounded in Point 5 of the Jokoku-Appeal Statement of Reasons as groundless, citing misapplication-of-law contentions and Supreme Court precedent.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/judgment-upon-the-permissibility-of-asserting-a-cause-for-invalidating-a-patent-point-5-ruled-to-be-groundless/663334/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/judgment-upon-the-permissibility-of-asserting-a-cause-for-invalidating-a-patent-point-5-ruled-to-be-groundless/663334.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Rowan","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-28",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":8},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What issue does the judgment address regarding patent invalidation causes?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It determines whether it is permissible to assert a cause for invalidating a patent based on publicly known facts that were not put forward for appeal/trial examination and decision.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Why is Point 5 of the Jokoku-Appeal Statement of Reasons ruled groundless?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Because the judgment finds the presented reasoning illegal as a misapplication of the law, contradicting the required handling of facts and examination scope.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Which legal framework does the judgment rely on?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It relies on the Old Patent Law (Law No. 96 of 1921), including provisions on seeking appeals to determination, filing litigation, and the effect of revoking determinations.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},663334,1793226786,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":8,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":39,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":46},1099514067415,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/100002539d78ffe74a7?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1779092875211072502","================================================================= Date of the judgement  \n1976.03.10  \n================================================================= Case Number  \n1967(Gyo-Tsu)28 ================================================================= Reporter  \nMinshu Vol. 30, No. 2, at 79 ================================================================= Title  \nJudgment upon the permissibility of asserting a cause for invalidating a patent in relation to publicly-known facts which were not put for appeal/trial examination and judgment in an appeal to the determination for invalidation of a patent in a lawsuit for revocation of an appeal/trial decision ================================================================= Case name  \nAction for revocation of an appeal to the determination ================================================================= Result  \nJudgment of the Grand Bench, ruling the argument to be groundless ================================================================= Court of the Second Instance  \nTokyo High Court, Judgment of December 13, 1966 ================================================================= Summary of the judgement  \nIt is not permissible to assert a cause for invalidating a patent in relation to publicly-known facts that were not put for appeal/trial examination and judgment in an appeal to the determination for  \ninvalidation of a patent in a lawsuit for revocation of an appeal to the determination.================================================================= References  \nArticle 1 of the Old Patent Law (Law No. 96 of 1921)  \nA person who works out a novel industrial invention is entitled to be granted a patent in connection with the said invention.  \nArticle 4 of the said law  \nIn order that there be novelty in the meaning of this law, an invention must not fall under any of the following cases:  \n1. The thing publicly-known or publicly used in the country before the application  \n2. The thing described in a publication circulated in the country before the application to the extent that it is easy to implement  \nArticle 57, Paragraph 1, Item 1, Item 2, Item 3  \nAny patent that falls under any of the following cases must be invalidated through an examination :  \n1. Where the patent was granted in contravention of the provisions set forth in Article 1 to Article 3, Article 8, or Article 32;  \n2. Where the patent was granted to a person who was not a successor entitled to the patent right or a person who infringed the right to the granting of a patent;  \n3. Where a specification or drawings related to the invention protected under a patent falls short of the description necessary to implement the said invention or contains unnecessary descriptions that make the implementation thereof impossible or difficult.  \nArticle 86 of the said law  \nAn action for an examination must be brought by submitting a written motion for the examination.  \nA written motion must contain a stated case and reasons.  \nArticle 117 of the said law  \nWhenever a finalized examination decision regarding a patent or the validity of permission under Article [53... is](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.  \nArticle 128-5 of the Old Patent Law (Law No. 96 of 1921)  \nThe court must revoke an appeal/trial decision or decision if it finds an action brought to be grounded.  \nIn the case of the preceding paragraph, appeal examiners in charge of the appeal to the determination must conduct further examination to reach the determination or decision.================================================================= Main text of the judgement  \nPoint 5 in the Statement of Reasons for a Jokoku-Appeal is hereby ruled to be groundless.================================================================= Reasons  \nRegarding point 5 in the Statement of Reasons for a Jokoku -Appeal presented by Attorney Iwao Niinaga:  \nThe ess","cbCaiaLWGdqmy2zM","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiaLWGdqmy2zM","pdf",46888,"English","# Summary of the judgement\n# References\n# Main text of the judgement\n# Reasons","[{\"question\":\"What issue does the judgment address regarding patent invalidation causes?\",\"answer\":\"It determines whether it is permissible to assert a cause for invalidating a patent based on publicly known facts that were not put forward for appeal/trial examination and decision.\"},{\"question\":\"Why is Point 5 of the Jokoku-Appeal Statement of Reasons ruled groundless?\",\"answer\":\"Because the judgment finds the presented reasoning illegal as a misapplication of the law, contradicting the required handling of facts and examination scope.\"},{\"question\":\"Which legal framework does the judgment rely on?\",\"answer\":\"It relies on the Old Patent Law (Law No. 96 of 1921), including provisions on seeking appeals to determination, filing litigation, and the effect of revoking determinations.\"}]","Judgment upon the permissibility of asserting a cause for invalidating a patent - Point 5 ruled to be groundless | PDF"]