TOPICS

“Training Apparatus”

Overview:

This case concerns a decision in an invalidation trial, in which a trial decision stating that “the request for the present trial is groundless” was upheld.

▶Summary of Judgment and Link to Full Text (in Japanese)

Main Issue:

The issue is whether Difference 3 that was not recognized by the trial decision — i.e., “in contrast to the present invention not including a support and clamp assembly, the invention according to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 does include such an assembly” — would have been easy to conceive.

Court’s Ruling:

The invention according to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 is an invention relating to a weightlifting device, wherein a weight support portion (weight support platform, clamp member 28, and fixed support column 38) is fixed to a bar, premised on use by the weights being secured to the weight support platform and the like. That is, the bar yields its operation and effect by being physically integrated with the support and clamp assembly formed by the weight support platform and the like, and there is neither disclosure nor suggestion in the invention according to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 that the bar yields its operation and effect as an exercise apparatus independently. It is therefore difficult to recognize any motive for those skilled in the art, upon exposure to the invention according to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, to remove the support and clamp assembly therefrom, and instead, it should be said to teach away from removing of the support and clamp assembly from the invention according to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.

It therefore cannot be recognized that those skilled in the art could have easily conceived of the configuration of Present Invention 1 relating to Difference 3.

Comments:

Although the plaintiff argued that there are no differences between Present Invention 1 and the invention according to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 even when comparing Present Invention 1 with the invention according to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 as recognized in the trial decision, due to all configurations of Present Invention 1 being encompassed in the invention according to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, the court held that it is not possible to extract only the bar, which is merely one component of the invention according to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 that relates to a triceps exercise apparatus, and interpret it as an invention of an independent exercise apparatus, based on descriptions of the invention according to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1. As the invention according to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 must therefore be deemed an invention wherein the support and clamp assembly along with the bar are inseparably integrated, the court did not therefore accept the plaintiff’s argument, finding that Difference 3 as asserted by the defendant cannot be disregarded as a distinction between Present Invention 1 and the invention according to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.

Hiroshi ABE