技術常識等を踏まえた進歩性判断

25/3/2026

特許庁審判部が公表した「審判実務者研究会報告書2025」における事例研究１テーマ２「技術常識等を踏まえた進歩性判断」では、以下の４つの論点が議論されています。
論点１：進歩性判断における「技術常識」や「周知技術」の意味、技術常識等を検討する背景について
論点２：技術常識等をどのように認定するとよいのか
論点３：技術常識等を踏まえ、相違点をどのように判断するとよいのか
論点４：審判合議体が職権を発動して技術常識等を認定する際の留意事項
報告書は、特許の進歩性判断における「技術常識」や「周知技術」の役割を、最新の知財高裁判決を基に体系化した研究報告とも言え、単なる動機付けの根拠にとどまらず、発明の認定、引用発明の解釈、設計事項の判断、さらには進歩性を肯定する阻害要因の立証など、判断の各段階で多機能に活用される実態を４つの類型に分類して解説しています。特に、数値限定や数式を含む発明において、公知の数値分布や効果の予測可能性を技術常識がいかに裏付けるかを具体例で示し、あわせて社会的要請や法的規制が判断に与える影響にも言及しています。
生成AIにこれらの論点について深堀させました。なお、生成AIによる調査・分析結果は、公開された情報からだけの分析であり、必ずしも実情を示したものではないこと、誤った情報も含まれていることについてはご留意されたうえで、ご参照ください。

事例研究１　テーマ２（特許機械２）
技術常識等を踏まえた進歩性判断
https://www.jpo.go.jp/resources/shingikai/kenkyukai/sinposei_kentoukai/document/2025_houkokusyo/01_machinery2.pdf

Inventive Step Assessment in Light of Common General Knowledge
In the case study “Theme 2: Inventive Step Assessment in Light of Common General Knowledge, etc.” from the Trial Practitioner Study Group Report 2025 published by the Trial and Appeal Department of the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the following four issues are discussed:

Issue 1: The meaning of “common general knowledge” and “well-known technology” in the assessment of inventive step, and the background for examining such knowledge
Issue 2: How to properly establish and recognize common general knowledge, etc.
Issue 3: How to assess differences in light of common general knowledge, etc.
Issue 4: Points to note when an appeal panel identifies common general knowledge, etc. ex officio

The report can be regarded as a systematic study that organizes the role of “common general knowledge” and “well-known technology” in assessing inventive step, based on recent Intellectual Property High Court decisions. It explains that such knowledge is not limited to serving as a basis for motivation to combine prior art, but is in fact utilized multifunctionally at various stages of the analysis. These include identifying the invention, interpreting cited inventions, determining design matters, and even substantiating obstructive factors that support the presence of inventive step. The report classifies these roles into four categories and provides detailed explanations.
In particular, for inventions involving numerical limitations or formulas, the report presents concrete examples illustrating how common general knowledge can support known numerical distributions and the predictability of effects. It also touches upon how social demands and legal regulations may influence the assessment.
I asked generative AI to explore these issues in depth. Please note that the analysis generated by AI is based solely on publicly available information and may not necessarily reflect actual circumstances; it may also contain inaccuracies.

0 Comments

よろず知財コンサルティングのブログ