News & Topics

On November 10, 2010, the Intellectual Property High Court (IPHC) reversed JPO board of appeal’s decision that the claimed inventions should be rejected due to lack of inventive step.

The invention at issue is “Detergent Composition”, which contains “sodium hydroxide”, “sequestrant” and “glycolic acid sodium”. Example of “sequestrant” is formula (1). Citation-1 is the invention on the sequestrant composition containing “sequestrant” and “glycolic acid sodium”. Citation-2 is the invention on solubly alkalinity detergent compositions containing “sodium hydroxide” and “sequestrant” together.

     
(wherein, M shows alkali metal ion, ammonium ion or substituted ammonium ion, and n shows 1-5.)

The defendant insists that “sequestrant” is well-known to be used as “detergent”. Therefore, it is easy to combine citation-1 with citation-2 because those two belong to the same technical field of “detergent” and invention at issue do not have enough effects to satisfy with inventive step.

As for this judgment, it is also mentioned that “sequestrant” is well-known to be used as “detergent”. However, it is not easy to create invention at issue from citation-1 and citation-2 because there is the disincentive in combining citation-1 with citation-2. In citation-1, there is the description that it is necessary to prevent a reaction to generate glycolic acid sodium. Citation-1 is the invention related to “sequestrant”, and there is the disincentive in adding “sodium hydroxide” to citation-1 which includes “glycolic acid sodium”. Then, this judgment reversed JPO board of appeal’s decision that the invention at issue should be rejected due to lack of inventive step.

http://www.ip.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20101111114300.pdf