Japanese Patent Case Summary: 2024 (Gyo-Ke) No. 10016 – Intellectual Property High Court (August 27, 2024)
“Undried Paste Tea Production”
Overview:
This case involves a request to overturn a decision that dismissed a petition for retrial. The court revoked the decision.
► Link to a summary and full text of the trial decision (Japanese)
Main Issue:
Whether the original decision must be finalized at the time a petition for retrial is filed.
Summary:
The plaintiff filed the petition for retrial on November 9, 2023, at which time the original decision had not been finalized. However, the decision on this petition for retrial was made on January 23, 2024…, by which time the original decision had been finalized. Therefore, although there was a defect in that the original decision had not been finalized at the time the petition for retrial was filed, this defect was remedied by the original decision having been finalized by the time the decision on the petition was made. Consequently, it is reasonable to interpret that the petition for retrial cannot be dismissed on the grounds of the aforementioned defect.
Furthermore, according to the petition for retrial in this case…, it is recognized that the plaintiff asserted grounds for retrial under Article 338(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as applied mutatis mutandis by Article 171(2) of the Patent Act. This petition for retrial does not involve any illegality due to the lack of an assertion of grounds for retrial, irrespective of whether these grounds for retrial are acknowledged.
[…]
Based on the above, it should be concluded that the petition for retrial in this case is not unlawful and cannot be considered unamendable.
Therefore, the decision in this case, which determined that the petition for retrial was unlawful and could not be amended, is erroneous, and the grounds for revocation asserted by the plaintiff are valid.
Comments:
The defendant (JPO) argued that “the plaintiff filed the request for retrial on November 9, 2023, at which time the original decision had not yet been finalized. Furthermore, the aforementioned dates cannot be amended.” However, as stated above, the court did not accept the defendant’s argument.
Kazuyuki YOSHIZUMI