進歩性判断の第三の道 非容易推考説と技術的貢献説の協調運用

パテント誌Vol. 77,No. 8に掲載されている森・濱田松本法律事務所　時井 真 弁護士「非容易推考説と技術的貢献説の協調運用～進歩性判断の第三の道の模索」は、早稲田大学名誉教授　高林 龍 弁護士が『・・・進歩性判断における理論面での研究の進展を提示するものとしては、本号登載の田村善之「進歩性（非容易推考性）要件における二次的考慮説の現在地～プロキシーとしての「顕著な効果」論～」、髙橋淳「進歩性判断における技術的貢献の位置づけ」及び次号登載予定の時井真「非容易推考説と技術的貢献説の協調運用～進歩性判断の第三の道の模索～」の三論考を特に指摘することができる。』と三論考のひとつに挙げているものです。
「・・・日本法における実務において、独立要件説でも二次的考慮説でもない第三の道、すなわち、技術的貢献説（進歩性という当該要件の通称のとおり、請求項に係る発明が引用例を含む従来技術に対して技術的に貢献したか、或いは発明に技術的意義があるかという視点を重視して進歩性を判断する考え方）が見落とされている」ことが「意図的に複雑な構成にして、確かに誰もが容易には思いつかないのであるが、何の役に立っているのかよくわからない発明は、「産業の発達」（1 条）という目的に沿わないから進歩性を否定すべきところ、両説を純粋に貫く限りは進歩性を否定しがたい」問題の根底にあるという、鋭い指摘です。
特許庁、裁判所を含めて議論が深まることを期待しています。
 
 
非容易推考説と技術的貢献説の協調運用～進歩性判断の第三の道の模索
https://jpaa-patent.info/patent/viewPdf/4467
 
 
Exploring a Third Path in the Assessment of Inventive Step, Harmonized Application of the Non-Obviousness Theory and the Technological Contribution Theory
 
The article "Harmonized Application of the Non-Obviousness Theory and the Technological Contribution Theory: Exploring a Third Path in the Assessment of Inventive Step," written by lawyer Shin Tokii of Mori Hamada & Matsumoto Law Offices, published in Patent magazine Vol. 77, No. 8, is one of the three critical discussions highlighted by Waseda University Emeritus Professor and lawyer Ryu Takabayashi. He mentions, "As an indication of progress in theoretical research on the assessment of inventive step, the three key discussions to note in this issue are: Yoshiyuki Tamura's 'The Current State of the Secondary Consideration Theory in the Requirement of Inventive Step (Non-Obviousness): The Discussion on "Remarkable Effect" as a Proxy,' Jun Takahashi's 'Positioning of Technological Contribution in the Assessment of Inventive Step,' and Shin Tokii's 'Harmonized Application of the Non-Obviousness Theory and the Technological Contribution Theory: Exploring a Third Path in the Assessment of Inventive Step,' which is scheduled to be published in the next issue."
Tokii's article presents a sharp critique, highlighting that "in Japanese law, particularly in practice, a third path—neither the independent requirement theory nor the secondary consideration theory—namely, the technological contribution theory (where the assessment of inventive step, as implied by the name of this requirement, focuses on whether the invention related to the claim has made a technological contribution or has technological significance compared to prior art, including cited references)—has been overlooked." This observation points to the underlying issue that "inventions that are indeed difficult for anyone to easily conceive due to their intentionally complex structures, yet seem to have little practical utility, do not align with the purpose of 'the development of industry' (Article 1), and thus, inventive step should be denied. However, as long as either of the two theories is strictly adhered to, it is difficult to deny inventive step." This keen observation calls for further deepening of discussions, including those involving the Japan Patent Office and the courts.