令和５年（行ケ)第１００９８号審決取消請求事件「衣料用洗浄剤組成物」

発明の名称を「衣料用洗浄剤組成物」とする特許発明について、当業者は引用発明及び出願日当時の周知技術に基づき、当該特許発明と当該引用発明との相違点に係る構成を導くことを容易に想到することができたものといえ、かつ、当該特許発明が奏する効果は当該特許発明の構成から当業者が予測することのできた範囲を超える顕著なものであったとは認められないとして、特許無効審判請求を不成立とした審決を取り消した事例です。
 
原告は、審判段階で、無効理由として、引用発明に基づく新規性の欠如及び進歩性の欠如並びにサポート要件違反を主張しましたが、審決は、いずれの無効理由も認められないと判断しました。そのため、原告は、本件審決の取消しを求める本件訴訟を提起、原告が主張する取消事由は、新規性の判断の誤り、進歩性の判断の誤り、サポート要件違反の有無に関する判断の誤りでした。
判決は、新規性及びサポート要件違反の有無の判断については、本件審決に誤りがあるとは認められないとしましたが、進歩性については、本件審決の判断は誤りであるとして、本件審決を取り消しました。
権利者は、訂正申立を行っており、どういう攻防が続くのか注目されます。
 
 
令和６年５月１４日判決言渡
令和５年（行ケ）第１００９８号 審決取消請求事件　判 決
https://www.ip.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_jp/047/093047_hanrei.pdf
 
 
Heisei 5 (Gyo-Ke) No. 10098 Case for Revocation of Decision "Detergent Composition for Clothing"
 
This is a case where the court revoked a decision that had dismissed a request for a patent invalidation trial regarding the patented invention titled "Detergent Composition for Clothing." The court determined that a person skilled in the art could have easily derived the configuration related to the differences between the patented invention and the cited invention based on the cited invention and the common general knowledge at the time of the application. Additionally, it was not recognized that the effects achieved by the patented invention were remarkable beyond the scope that a person skilled in the art could have predicted from the configuration of the patented invention.
 
During the trial stage, the plaintiff argued invalidity reasons, including lack of novelty and inventive step based on the cited invention, as well as non-compliance with the support requirement. However, the decision did not acknowledge any of these invalidity reasons. Therefore, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit seeking the revocation of the decision, claiming errors in the judgment regarding novelty, inventive step, and compliance with the support requirement.
 
The judgment found no errors in the decision regarding novelty and compliance with the support requirement. However, it determined that there was an error in the decision regarding inventive step and thus revoked the decision.
 
The patent holder has filed a request for correction, and attention is focused on how the legal battle will continue.