令和8年〔ネ〕第10023号　意識的除外

4/11/2026

知財高裁令和8年8月27日判決（令和8年〔ネ〕第10023号）は、電気コーヒーメーカーの特許侵害を否定した原判決を維持し、特許権者の控訴を棄却しました。注目したいのは、権利化のための補正や意見書の説明が、後の権利行使で不利に働いた点です。
特許権者は、本件特許2の拒絶理由への対応で、ヒータを「中空に吊り下げ」る構成を追加し、意見書で「ボイラー底全面が給湯孔のために使用できる」と説明しました。裁判所は、この出願経過に照らし、底面に接触して固定された被告製品のヒータ構成は意識的に除外されたとして、均等侵害を否定しました。
本件の教訓は、単に意見書の説明を減らすことではなく、補正と説明によって、どの代替構成を権利範囲から除外したと理解されるかを点検することです。「取れる特許」と「使える特許」を一体で考える必要性を示す事例です。
この判決について、判決文や既存の評釈を基に、複数の生成AIに実務上の示唆を検討させましたので、ご参照ください。なお、生成AIによる分析には誤りが含まれる可能性があります。判決の認定・判断と評釈の評価を区別し、原文も確認のうえ、ご参照ください。

令和8年（ネ）第10023号特許権侵害差止等請求控訴事件　判決
https://www.courts.go.jp/assets/hanrei/hanrei-pdf-96986.pdf

Case No. 2026 (Ne) 10023: Intentional Exclusion
In its judgment of August 27, 2026 (Case No. 2026 (Ne) 10023), the Intellectual Property High Court upheld the lower court’s judgment of non-infringement in a case concerning an electric coffee maker and dismissed the patentee’s appeal. Of particular interest is how amendments and explanations submitted during prosecution to secure patent protection later worked against the patentee when enforcing its rights.
In responding to the reasons for refusal concerning Patent 2 at issue, the patentee added a limitation requiring the heater to be “suspended in midair” and explained in its written submissions that “the entire bottom surface of the boiler can be used for hot-water supply openings.” In light of this prosecution history, the court held that the heater configuration in the defendant’s products—in which the heater was fixed in contact with the boiler’s bottom surface—had been intentionally excluded from the scope of protection, and therefore found no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
The lesson of this case is not simply to provide fewer explanations in written submissions, but to examine which alternative configurations may be understood to have been excluded from the scope of protection by the amendments and accompanying explanations. The case illustrates the need to consider “patents that can be obtained” and “patents that can be effectively enforced” together.
Drawing on the judgment and existing case commentaries, I asked several generative AI systems to examine the practical implications of this decision. Please refer to their analyses, bearing in mind that analyses generated by AI may contain errors. When reviewing them, please distinguish the court’s findings and rulings from the assessments offered in the commentaries, and consult the original judgment as well.

0 Comments

よろず知財コンサルティングのブログ