★★★ ＜第29回知的財産翻訳検定試験【第14回英文和訳】＞ ★★★
≪１級課題 -知財法務実務-≫【解答にあたっての注意】
１．問題の指示により和訳してください。
２．解答語数に特に制限はありません。適切な箇所で改行してください。
３．課題文に段落番号がある場合、これを訳文に記載してください。
４．課題は２題あります。それぞれの課題の指示に従い、２題すべて解答してください。

問１．下記の英文は、米国特許を侵害しているとして米国国際貿易委員会（ITC）から一部排除命令の決定を受けた被申立人が、その決定を不服として米国連邦巡回控訴裁判所（CAFC）に提起した訴訟の判決文から抜粋したものです。下線部を日本語に翻訳してください。
［翻訳に際しての注記］（１）翻訳対象となる下線部は２箇所あり、それぞれ*** START ***, *** END***で始終点を示してあります。
（２）下線部については原文中の他文献等参照、引用に関する記載と関連する引用符を削除してあります。また全体として原文の脚注を削除しています。
（３）他の事件名を略称する Nautilus の語は原語のまま転記してください。
（４）２箇所目の翻訳箇所を示す下線部に含まれている“lofty fibrous batting”の語句は、日本語に翻訳するに及びません。原語のまま翻訳文中で使用してください。
A*** START *** A patent’s specification must conclude with one or moreclaims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter
which the applicant regards as his invention.

This statutory provision

requires that a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification andprosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of theinvention with reasonable certainty.

Indefiniteness is a question of law that

we review de novo, subject to a determination of underlying facts, which wereview for substantial evidence.

The “reasonable certainty” standard established in Nautilus reflects a
delicate balance between the inherent limitations of language and providing
clear notice of what is claimed.

It mandates clarity, while recognizing thatabsolute precision is unattainable.

It also accommodates the fact that somemodicum of uncertainty . . . is the price of ensuring the appropriate
incentives for innovation.

Consistent with these principles, we have

explained that a patentee need not define his invention with mathematicalprecision in order to comply with the definiteness requirement.

Instead, thedegree of precision necessary for adequate claims is a function of the natureof the subject matter. Indeed, descriptive words like ‘copious’ are commonlyused in patent claims, to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified
parameter.
To be sure, patents with claims involving terms of degree must provide
objective boundaries for those of skill in the art in the context of theinvention.

Intrinsic evidence—such as the claims, figures, written

description, or prosecution history of a patent—can provide the necessary
objective boundaries.

Extrinsic evidence can also help identify objectiveboundaries. *** END ***B
On appeal, Alison challenges the Commission’s determination that claims
1, 7, and 9 of the ’359 patent are not indefinite.

Alison argues that thechallenged claims are invalid because “lofty . . . batting” is an indefinite termof degree without a precise boundary.

While we agree that “lofty . . . batting”

is a term of degree, Alison seeks a level of “mathematical precision” beyond
what the law requires.

Sonix, 844 F.3d at 1377. For the reasons thatfollow, we hold that the challenged claims are not indefinite because thewritten description of the ’359 patent provides objective boundaries for theclaim term “lofty . . . batting.”（中略）The written description of the ’359 patent is replete with examples andmetrics that further inform the meaning of “lofty . . . batting.” It identifies
specific examples of commercial products that can qualify as a lofty batting,including “Primaloft” (id. at col. 7 ll. 15–20), “Holofil” (id. at col. 7 ll. 50–56),“Thinsulate Lite Loft” (id. at col. 11 ll. 30–32), and “Quartzel” (id. at col. 12 ll.
6–9).

It includes a list of nearly twenty “particularly suitable” fibrousmaterials for forming lofty batting, including commercial products like
“Nomex,” “Kevlar,” “Spectra,” and “Kynol.”Id. at col. 9 ll. 25–40.

Itprovides metrics for the fineness of fibers (id. at col. 7 ll. 23–25), thecross-sectional area of the fibers (id. at col. 7 ll. 32–36), the thermal
conductivity of the batting (id. at col. 7 ll. 36–39), the compressibility andresilience of the batting (id. at col. 7 ll. 42–59), and the density of the batting(id. at col. 7 l. 64–col. 8 l. 1).

The written description of the ’359 patentconcludes with a detailed discussion of seven examples of aerogel composites
manufactured in accordance with the claimed invention, along withcorresponding test results.

See id. at col. 11 l. 21–col. 14 l. 34 (Examples 1–7).
*** START *** Because the written description is key to determining
whether a term of degree is indefinite, we conclude that the evidence above issufficient to dispose of this issue.
also supports our conclusion.

But we note that the prosecution history

In the Statement of Reasons for Allowance,

the patent examiner emphasized that the specification defined “lofty fibrousbatting” as “a fibrous material that shows the properties of bulk and someresilience (with or without full bulk recovery)” and distinguished the prior
art based on this term. *** END ***Similarly, in its decision denying

institution of IPR, the Board noted that “both parties agree that [“loftyfibrous batting”] indicates a fibrous material with both bulk and ‘resilience,’
which is the ability to regain at least some portion of its original shape andsize after being compressed.”

Alison, 2017 WL 2485089, at *3.

The extrinsic evidence provides further support for the objective
boundaries of “lofty . . . batting.”

A technical dictionary confirms that“batting” and “loft” are terms of art that have meanings consistent with theiruse in the ’359 patent.

See J.A. 12520–24. Before the Commission, bothparties’ experts could explain the meaning of “bulk” and “some resilience,”
the two defining characteristics of a “lofty . . . batting.”

While notdispositive, the application of these terms by the parties’ experts, along withthe examiner and Board at the Patent Office, further supports our conclusionthat the challenged claim term is not indefinite.

See Sonix, 844 F.3d at

1380 (“Although . . . application by the examiner and an expert do not, on
their own, establish an objective standard, they nevertheless provide
evidence that a skilled artisan did understand the scope of this invention
with reasonable certainty.”).
In sum, the written description of the ’359 patent provides sufficient detailto inform a person of ordinary skill in the art about the meaning of “lofty . . .
batting.”

That puts this case in the same class as cases like Sonix and Enzo,

where we held that examples and procedures in the written description
provided sufficient guidance and points of comparison to render claim terms
not indefinite.

See Sonix, 844 F.3d at 1376–81; Enzo, 599 F.3d at 1332–36.

We therefore conclude that claims 1, 7, and 9 are not indefinite because
the ’359 patent informs a person of ordinary skill in the art about the scope of“lofty . . . batting” with “reasonable certainty.”

Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 901.

［参考１］本件米国特許７０７８３５９号の関連クレーム
1. A composite article to serve as a flexible, durable, light-weight insulation
product, said article comprising a lofty fibrous batting sheet and acontinuous aerogel through said batting. (Emphasis added)
7. The composite article of claim 1, further comprising a dopant.
9. The composite article of claim 7, wherein the dopant is present in an
amount of about 1 to 20% by weight of the total weight of the composite.
［参考２］本件米国特許７０７８３５９号の関連図面
符号２０：aerogel composite
符号２１：inorganic or organic batting

問２． 以下の英文は、ドイツ法人 ABC Inc.（ABC）と日本法人 XYZ 株式会社（XYZ）が先に締結した本医薬品（Medicine）に関する共同研究契約（JointDevelopment Agreement）（文中にいう Original Agreement のことです。）に関して、共同研究（Joint Development）の結果生じた対象発明（Invention）の取扱いを変更するために締結された覚書を抜粋したものです（架空の事例です。）。翻訳対象箇所を日本語に翻訳してください。
［翻訳に際しての注記］（１）翻訳対象箇所は１箇所で、*** START ***, *** END ***で始終点を示してあります。
（２）契約書中において特別に定義されている用語（先頭大文字の用語です。
以下「定義語」といいます。）については、翻訳文でも定義語であることが一目瞭然となるように（定義語でない語と紛らわしくないように）訳語を工夫してください。
（３）。翻訳文だけを読んでも内容を正確に且つ容易に理解できるよう、契約書として自然な日本語訳を心がけてください。必要であれば、内容の正確性が担保される限りにおいて、一文を区切って二文で表現するなど、工夫を凝らしていただいて構いません。
*** START ***ABC and XYZ hereby agree, notwithstanding the provision governing theownership of any result obtained from the Joint Development under theOriginal Agreement, to apportion the titles, rights and interests (the “Titles”)
in and to the Invention between the parties hereto as set out below:(a)Insofar as the territory of Japan is concerned, XYZ shall exclusively
have all Titles in and to the Invention, which shall include without
limitation the right to patent in respect of the Invention, the right to fileand prosecute any patent application for the Invention under the solename of XYZ, but expressly exclude any right to file and prosecute any
patent application in respect of the Invention in any territory outside ofJapan irrespective of whether or not any priority is claimed. For theavoidance of doubt, all cost required for exploiting, maintaining orprotecting the XYZ’s rights hereof (which shall expressly include
perfecting such rights so as to be good against any third party) shall beborne by XYZ;(b)Insofar as the territories of the People’s Republic of China (excluding
Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macao) and the Republic of Korea areconcerned, ABC shall have all Titles in and to the Invention, but XYZ is
hereby granted with an exclusive license to manufacture the Medicine
by exploiting the Invention and to export such Medicine to the territoryof Japan, provided that it is expressly acknowledged and agreed thatthe exclusivity granted herein shall be construed as merely restraining
XYZ from granting the same license to any third party and that nothingherein shall constitute the ABC’s waiver of its right to manufacture,export or otherwise exploit the Invention on its own in these territories;and(c)For any and all territory other than those set forth in paragraphs (a)and (b), ABC shall exclusively have all Titles in and to the Invention,and may enforce any of its rights in respect of the Invention against
XYZ if XYZ commits any act contrary to the provisions herein(including without limitation any exploitation of the Invention) in anyof such territories without a prior written authorization by ABC.

*** END ***