Episode 7

When preparing a patent specification, whether or not "effects of the invention" should be described. If so, should it be written in the [effects of the invention] column or in the "mode for carrying out the invention" column? There are lawyers and patent attorneys who are debating whether it should be done(https://jpaa-patent.info/patent/viewPdf/3240).
 However, in the enforcement of rights, that is, in patent infringement lawsuits, the technical scope of a patented invention (Article 70 of the Patent Act) is determined not only by the statement in the specification, but also by the relative relationship between the present invention and the subject invention, and may be interpreted more narrowly or more broadly than the scope of the claims (Refer to Court Cases 1 and 2 under "Technical Scope of Patented Inventions and Their Interpretation" in [Reference Materials], respectively).
 There is a point in pointing out that writing too much about the effects of the invention when preparing a patent specification will narrow the scope of the right. However, if the reason for invalidation is lack of inventive step (violation of Article 29, Paragraph 2 of the Patent Law) (Article 123, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Patent Law), rights cannot be exercised (Article 104-3 of the Patent Law). In this case, the right holder can use "advantageous effect" as the basis for claiming inventive step during the trial of an infringement awsuit(https://www.jpo.go.jp/system/laws/rule/guideline/patent/tukujitu_kijun/document/index/03_0202bm.pdf). The relationship between the description in the patent specification and the scope of rights is determined by the balance of multiple factors.

Episode 6

In Japan, the number of intellectual property lawsuits, including patent infringement lawsuits, is extremely low compared to other countries, and the success rate of patent holders in patent infringement lawsuits is lower than in other countries (https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/titeki2/tyousakai/kensho_hyoka_kikaku/tf_chiizai/dai3/sankousiryou03.pdf).
Due to this, a phenomenon called "Japan Passing" is occurring. This means that the number of patent application families that are filed in the United States, Europe, China, and South Korea but are not filed in Japan is increasing.
In response to this, the success rate of patent holders in patent infringement lawsuits at the Intellectual Property Specialist Divisions of the Tokyo District Court and the Osaka District Court has increased in recent years. However, approximately 40% of patent infringement lawsuits end in settlement (https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/vc-files/ip/2023/2022_sintoukei_H26-r4.pdf). When a judicial settlement is recorded in a record, that statement has the same effect as a final judgment (Article 267 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
Once a lawsuit is filed to resolve a dispute and a judgment is made, that information will be made available to the public (Article 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure). If you wish to resolve a dispute without the knowledge of a third party, you may consider a settlement between the parties. The legal effect of a settlement between the parties is a type of contract under the Civil Code (Articles 695 and 696 of the Civil Code).
By the way, intellectual property mediation began in October 2019 (https://www.courts.go.jp/tokyo/saiban/minzi_section29_40_46_47/tizaityoutei/index.html). As a general rule, intellectual property mediation is not disclosed to third parties. When an agreement is reached between the parties in intellectual property mediation and it is recorded in the record, the mediation is deemed to have been completed, and that statement has the same effect as a judicial settlement (Article 16 of the Civil Mediation Act).

Episode 5

Continuing from Episode 4, we will explain the protection of intellectual property rights under various laws.
Software (computer program) algorithms are protected by patent law, and algorithms are represented in flowcharts. When exercising rights regarding a program invention, the invention must be compared with the subject invention according to the flowchart, and the algorithm of the subject invention must be analyzed. As a result of the analysis, even if the right holder determines that the right has been infringed, in actual court, the technical scope of a patented invention (Article 70 of the Patent Act) may be interpreted more narrowly or more broadly than the scope of the claims. These correspond to judicial precedents 1 and 2 of "Technical Scope of Patented Inventions and Their Interpretation" in [Reference Materials], respectively.
Images displayed by programs are now protected by the Design Act revised in 2019 (enforced on April 1, 2020). The comparison of the designs in the images is self-explanatory. However, when exercising design rights, even if the right holder determines that there are similarities, it does not necessarily mean that the court will determine that they are similar.
If the same intellectual property right is protected under multiple laws, even if one is unsuccessful, it may be protected under other laws.