News & Topics

 On December 24, the Tokyo district court decided in favor of the patent holder.  The plaintiff who has been developing and selling fishing gears under the trade name Studio Ocean Mark has a patent JP 4158990 B2 which relates to a fish gripper for gripping a jaw of fish.  Claim 1 of the patent states as follows:
Claim1
A fish gripper, comprising:
    A)    an elongate body extending in a distal-to-proximal direction;
    B)    a fixed jaw mounted on a distal end of the body;
    C)    a pivotable jaw pivotably connected at its proximal end to the distal end of the body so that a distal end thereof is moved to and from a distal end of the fixed jaw for gripping a jaw (mouth) of a fish;
    D)    an actuator mounted for movement on the body from a first (original) position to a second position away from the first position by a forced movement of a finger engagement connected to the actuator; and
    E)    a retracting spring for retracting the actuator from the second position to the first original position;
    F)    wherein the pivotable jaw is so constructed that, when the actuator takes the first (original) position, the pivotable jaw is prohibited from pivoting in a direction in which the pivotable jaw moves away from the distal end of the fixed jaw and, as the actuator is forcedly moved against the retracting spring, the pivotable jaw pivots to cause the distal end of the pivotable jaw to move away from the distal end of the fixed jaw.
 
Regarding the structure of element F) by which the pivotable jaw is prohibited from pivoting, the specification discloses that the movement of the actuator 16 is prohibited not only by the engagement between the locking surface 16j and the upper edge portion 14d of the pivotable jaw 14 but also by the contacts of the pins 18, 18a and projection 16b with the associated edges of the elongate slot and the contacts of the screw 19 with the associated left side edge of the actuator 16, without using any biasing force from the retracting spring.

 The accused device employs a similar pin-and-slot engagement structure (first structure) for prohibiting the pivoting action of the pivotable jaw.  Also, the court construed that the engagement structure (second structure) between the locking surface of the actuator and the associated edge portion is not necessarily required additionally to prohibit the pivotal movement of the pivotable jaw.  Further, it is simply a choice of design for a person having ordinary skill in the art whether to employ both the first and second structures or only the first structure.
 
In conclusion, the court decided that claim 1 was infringed because the accused device employs the similar pin and slot structure for prohibiting the pivotal movement of the pivotable jaw.
 
http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20110106150432.pdf