TOPICS

“Child Safety Seat or Baby Carrier for Mounting on a Vehicle Seat, and Side-Impact Bar for Such a Seat”

Overview:
This case concerns the Intellectual Property High Court overturning a JPO trial decision that recognized, as a correction of mistranslation, a correction request during a patent invalidation trial in which the correction changed the translation of “linear” from “直線的” to “直接的” (“direct”) in para. 0008 of the specification.
▶Summary and Link to Full Text (Japanese)

Main Issue:
Whether it is permissible to amend the translation of “linear” appearing in the original text of an international application filed in a foreign language from “直線的” (“linear/straight-line”) in para. 0008 of the present specification to “直接的” (“direct”) as a correction of mistranslation.

Summary:
In a request for correction made in a patent invalidation trial relating to a patent granted on a foreign-language patent application, it is understood that two requirements must be met in order for a correction to qualify as a “correction of mistranslation” under Article 134bis(1), proviso item (ii) of the Patent Act: (i) that the meaning of the description in the original text of the specification, (patent) claims or drawings (Patent Act Article 184undevicies; hereinafter “original text”) for the international application as of the international filing date differs, as the result of a translation error (mistranslation), from the meaning of the description in the specification, claims, or drawings at the time of registration (or, if corrected in a correction trial, after such correction); and (ii) that the meaning of the corrected description matches that expressed in the description of the original text.

…Turning to the present case, the amendment in Correction 7 sought to change the description in para. 0008 of the specification prior to correction, where “linear” in the original text had been translated as “直線的,” to “直接的,” with the stated purpose of correcting a mistranslation. The defendant argues that, with respect to this correction, the focus was not solely on the single translated term “直線的” being itself a mistranslation warranting replacement by “直接的,” but rather on ensuring that the overall meaning is faithful to the original.

However, according to dictionary definitions, “linear” is recognized as having the meaning “straight-line, line-shaped,” among others. Moreover, the defendant did not even target the above “直線的” in para. 0008 for correction in the prior correction request (Note 1). Rather, in Correction XII of the correction request deemed withdrawn on the grounds of correction of mistranslation (Note 2), the defendant expressly sought a correction that included translating two instances of “linear” in the pertinent original text as “直線的,” and argued that such was the correct translation of the original. In light of these circumstances, when “linear” in the original text is translated as “直線的” in the specification, it cannot be recognized that the meaning of the original description and that of the specification differ. Conversely, because the terms “直線” (“straight-line/linear”) and “直接” (“direct”) have different meanings, revising the translation of “linear” in the specification to “直接的” would not make the corrected description match the meaning of the original description.

Accordingly, with respect to Correction 7, it cannot be said that the pre-correction “直線的” in the specification differs in meaning from “linear” in the original due to a translation error, and thus requirement (i) above is not satisfied; nor can it be said that the post-correction description matches the meaning of the original description, and thus requirement (ii) is not satisfied.

In light of the above, Correction 7 is recognized as not constituting a correction of mistranslation under Article 134bis(1), proviso item (ii) of the Patent Act.

Note: Three correction requests were made in the invalidation trial. “Note 1” refers to the first correction request; “Note 2” refers to the second correction request.

Comments:
The defendant argued that, for the correction at issue, the focus was not on the single translated term “直線的” being itself a mistranslation warranting replacement by “直接的,” but rather on making the overall meaning faithful to the original. However, the court rejected this, stating in substance that the matters asserted by the defendant are not matters described in the original text, but only the defendant’s interpretation in light of the original. Moreover, in the deemed-withdrawal correction request, the defendant had asserted completely different matters as being those described in the original. Therefore, the correction at issue does not correct an error arising from a translation that differs from the original, but instead aims to align the text with the defendant’s current interpretation, and thus is not permissible as a correction of mistranslation. The court also found no circumstance, as the defendant claimed, that the pre-correction “直線的” was unclear and the post-correction “直接的” would be clearer and faithful to the original. This judgment offers practical guidance that mistranslation corrections demand strict conformity of meaning between the original and the Japanese description, and that consistency in the patentee’s positions is given significant weight.

Yuji WADA