Design

Date

January 12, 2022

Court

Case

2021 (Gyo-Ke) 10067

Intellectual Property High
Court, Second Division

number- A case in which the court rescinded a decision made by the Japan Patent Office (the"JPO Decision") in which the JPO maintained the examiner's decision to refuse anapplication for design registration.
- It cannot be said that the fact that an applicant changes its allegation in the appeal
seeking rescission of the JPO decision from its allegation made in the examinationand trial stages is not allowed due to estoppel.
Case type: Rescission of Appeal Decision of Refusal
Results: Granted
References: Article 3, paragraph (1), item (iii) of the Design Act
Related rights, etc.: Design Application No. 2019-017357
Decision of the JPO: Appeal against Examiner's Decision of Refusal No. 2020-11187
Summary of the Judgment
1. This case is an appeal seeking rescission of the JPO Decision in which the JPO
maintained the examiner's decision to refuse an application for design registration. The
JPO Decision determined that both the design in the application in question (the"Design in the Application") and the cited design (the design of a syringe for an injector
stated in the design of an injector in a South Korean registered design/registration
number 30-0309501; the "Cited Design") have the use and function of an external
cylinder of a medical injector; therefore, the articles are identical and the shapes are
similar; accordingly, the Design in the Application falls under Article 3, paragraph (1),item (iii) of the Design Act and the design cannot be registered.
2. The Plaintiff alleged in the examination proceedings and trial that the articles
embodying the Design in the Application and the Cited Design are common; however,the Plaintiff alleged for the first time in this lawsuit that the article embodying the
Design in the Application is an "exchangeable drug solution container that is inserted
inside an automatic injector, etc." and is different from the article embodying the Cited
Design (a syringe for an injector). On the other hand, the Defendant (the "Japan Patent
Office") alleged that the fact that the Plaintiff made a different allegation from its
allegation up to the trial stage is not allowed due to estoppel.
3. In this judgment, the court held as stated below and rescinded the JPO Decision.
(1) Presence of grounds for refusal of the application for design registration should beidetermined by the examiners based on their authority (Article 17 of the Design Act
before amendment in 2019) and the statements of the applicant in the stage of
examination or in the stage of appeal have no binding effect of admission. In addition,in this case, which is an appeal seeking rescission of the JPO Decision wherein theappropriateness of the establishment of rights is an issue, not the appropriateness of
exercise of the right, the Defendant handled the case as an administrative authority.
Concerning the article embodying the design of the Design in the Application, there is
no relationship that the Defendant's benefits were unjustly harmed by the fact that thePlaintiff's allegation at each stage of examination and appeal differed from its allegationin this lawsuit. Based on these facts, it cannot go so far as to say, in relation to theallegation of the Plaintiff in the written opinion and the written request for appeal inquestion, that the Plaintiff is not allowed to make a different allegation from its
allegation made before the JPO Decision by applying the doctrine of estoppel.
(2) In consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff, who is an applicant, entered as therelevant article not only "インジェクター (injector)," which means a syringe, but also
"インジェクターカートリッジ (injector cartridge)" as well, it is reasonable to findthat "インジェクターカートリッジ (injector cartridge)" means a "cartridge for asyringe." Then, it is presumed that " カ ー ト リ ッ ジ (cartridge)" means a small
container filled with liquid, gas, etc. for replacement based on the explanations in
dictionaries and other Patent Gazettes. Consequently, it is reasonable to find that "インジェクターカートリッジ (injector cartridge)" means "a small container filled withliquid, gas, etc. that is exchangeable for a syringe."(3) The article embodying the Cited Invention is found to have the use and function of
external cylinders for injectors.
(4) Consequently, since the articles embodying the Design in the Application and theCited Design are not common, the JPO Decision contains errors in its determination
concerning the article embodying the Design in the Application and the determination
concerning the identicalness between the Design in the Application and the Cited
Design, and therefore, the grounds for rescission 1 (errors in determination concerning
the article embodying the Design in the Application and the determination concerning
the identicalness (similarity) between the Design in the Application and the Cited
Design) are well-grounded.

ii

Judgment rendered on January 12, 2022
2021 (Gyo-Ke) 10067, Case of seeking rescission of the JPO decision
Date of conclusion of oral argument: December 16, 2021
Judgment
Plaintiff: Portal Instruments Inc.

Defendant: Commissioner of the Japan Patent Office

Main text
1. The decision made by the Japan Patent Office (JPO) on January 6, 2021, concerning
the case of Appeal against Examiner's Decision of Refusal No. 2020-11187 shall be
rescinded.
2. The Defendant shall bear the court costs.
Facts and reasonsNo. 1 Claim
Same as the main text.
No. 2 Outline of the caseThis case is a lawsuit seeking rescission of a trial decision made by the JPO in which
the JPO maintained the examiner's decision to refuse an application for design
registration.
1. Outline of procedures at the JPO(1) The Plaintiff filed a design registration application with the details stated in 2. below(the "Application"; the design related to the Application is referred to as the "Design in
the Application") on August 2, 2019 (priority date: February 4, 2019 [hereinafterreferred to as the "Priority Date"] and priority country: the United States of America
under the Paris Convention), and submitted a written opinion (the "Written Opinion";
Exhibit Otsu 5) on March 2, 2020 against a notice of grounds for refusal dated October24, 2019; however, the application was refused on April 20, 2020.
The Plaintiff submitted a written request for appeal on August 12, 2020 (the"Written Request for Appeal"; Exhibit Otsu 7) and filed a request for an appeal against
the examiner's decision of refusal. The JPO examined the request for a trial as a case of
Appeal against an Examiner's Decision of Refusal No. 2020-11187 and made the1decision that "the examiner's decision of refusal is maintained" (hereinafter referred toas the "JPO Decision") on January 6, 2021. A certified copy of the decision wasdelivered to the Plaintiff on the 26th of the same month. Concerning the JPO Decision,ninety days were added for the Plaintiff as the statute of limitations for filing an action.
2. The Design in the Application
The Design in the Application for which the Plaintiff intends to receive a design
registration by the Application is as stated in Attachment 1 (Exhibit Otsu 1).
3. Summary of the grounds for the JPO Decision(1) Comparison of the articles embodying the design and determination concerning thesimilarity
Concerning the articles embodying the Design in the Application and the designindicated in Attachment 2 (the "Cited Design"), the Design in the Appli cation is an "インジェクターカートリッジ (injector cartridge)" and the Cited Design is an "注射器用シリンジ (injector syringe)" and their indications are different; however, both ofthem have the use and function as an external cylinder of a medical injector and,
therefore, they are common. Consequently, the articles embodying both designs are
identical.
(2) Comparison of the shapes of both designs
A. Shapes of both designs are common in the following points.
(Common point 1) Whole shape
The whole shapes of both designs are common in the following points: they consistof a nozzle unit in the shape of a nearly longitudinal frustum of a cone and a shoulder
unit in the shape of a nearly flat frustum of a cone at one end of the main body that isin the shape of a nearly longitudinal cylinder, and a nearly disk-shape flange unit at theother end concentrically with the main body.
(Common point 2) Main body
Both designs share the point that the main body is a nearly longitudinal cylinder
shape.
(Common point 3) Nozzle unit
The nozzle units of both designs share the point that they are in the shape of a nearlylongitudinal frustum of a cone that is more like a cylinder with a slight slope.
(Common point 4) Shoulder unit
The shoulder units of both designs share the point that they are in the shape of a low
flat frustum of a cone that is installed between the nozzle unit and the main body.
(Common point 5) Flange unit
The flange units of both designs share the point that their top and bottom edges in2the planar view of the nearly disk-shape plate are cutout parallel.
(Common point 6) Taper provided on corners
Both designs share the point that they have a slight taper on the nozzle edge.
B. Shapes of both designs are different in the following points.
(Difference 1) Whole shape
The composition ratio of length of the main body: the nozzle unit: the shoulder unit:
the flange unit in front vision is different as follows: the ratio in the Design in the
Application is approximately 82:12:3:3, while the ratio in the Cited Desi gn isapproximately 87:9:2:2.
(Difference 2) Main body
The composition ratio of the diameter and the length of the main body is different
as follows: the ratio in the Design in the Application is approximately 1:6, while theratio in the Cited Design is approximately 1:5.7.
(Difference 3) Nozzle unit
The ratio of the diameter of the top end and the back end in the nozzle unit isdifferent as follows: the ratio in the Design in the Application is 11:13, while the ratio
in the Cited Design is approximately 3:4.
(Difference 4) Shoulder unit
The ratio of the diameter on the nozzle unit side and the main body side is different
as follows: the ratio in the Design in the Application is approximately 1:2, while theratio in the Cited Design is approximately 1:3.
(Difference 5) Flange unit
The following points are different: concerning the diameter of the nearly disk shaped plate, the diameter in the Design in the Application is approximately 1.5 times
the shape of the main body, while the diameter in the Cited Design is approximately 1.7
times the shape of the main body; concerning the ratio of the horizontal size and thevertical size in the planar view, the ratio in the Design in the Application isapproximately 4:5, while the ratio in the Cited Design is approximately 5:7; and the
Design in the Application has a taper along the inner wall of the cylinder unit on thebottom surface side, while the bottom side in the Cited Design is formed flatly.
(Difference 6) Taper provided on corners
Corners other than the nozzle edge are different as follows: all corners are slightly
tapered in the Design in the Application, while there is no such taper in the Cited Design.
(3) Determination concerning the similarity in the shapes of both designs
A. In both designs, the shape composed by combining (Common point 1) through(Common point 6) forms the basic concept of each design. In particular, (Common point35) gives a strong common impression to consumers and, therefore, common points havea big impact on the determination concerning the similarity of the two designs. On theother hand, it must be said that the impact of each point, (Difference 1) through(Difference 6), on the aesthetic impression of the whole design is small. Even thoughthese differences are combined, it does not give an impression of difference between
the two designs to consumers. Therefore, it can be said that both designs cause acommon aesthetic impression as a whole.
Consequently, the shapes of both designs are similar.
B. The demandant (the Plaintiff) alleged that the shape of the flange unit and thecomposition ratio to the main body in the Design in the Application are different fromthose in the Cited Design. However, in the field of this type of external cylinders forinjectors, it is normal to make changes to alter the composition ratios of some of thewhole shape and thereby vary flange thickness, while maintaining the overall basic
concept common. Under such circumstance, the shape of the Design in the Application,
which has a slightly thick flange, is within the scope of naturally assumed changes in
the field of the relevant articles and it is not prominent, and designs with a slightly thickflange in the same way as the Design in the Application have been seen conventionally,as is seen in the design indicated in Attachment 3 (the "Reference Design"). In
consideration of these facts, it cannot be said that the shape of the Design in the
Application particularly catches the attention of consumers or that it gives a different
visual impression as a whole.
(omitted)
No. 5 Judgment of this court
1. The JPO Decision determined that the Design in the Application is similar to theCited Design and falls under Article 3, paragraph (1), item (iii) of the Design Act, and,
therefore, the design cannot be registered.
This decision is examined below. Since a design is united with an article, in orderto refuse registration pursuant to Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Design Act on the
grounds that the relevant design is identical or similar to a design that had been wellknown in Japan or overseas before the filing of an application for registration or adesign that is indicated in a publication distributed in Japan or overseas before the filingof an application for registration, first, it is necessary that the article embodying thedesign is identical or similar and that the design itself is found to be identical or similar(see 1970 (Gyo-Tsu) 45, the judgment of the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court
4

of March 19, 1974, Minshu Vol. 28, No. 2, at 308).
Then, if the determination concerning the identicalness or similarity of an article isin error, it should be said that there is an error in the determination as to whether thedesign falls under Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Design Act.
2. (1) The Plaintiff alleged that it was an error that the JPO Decision determined thatthe article embodying the Design in the Application is "an external cylinder of a medical
injector." On the other hand, the Defendant alleged that [i] the JPO Decision det erminedthat an article embodying the Design in the Application is "an article that has the use
and function of an external cylinder of a medical injector" based on the statement in thewritten application in question (the "Written Application"), etc. and there is no error in
the determination; [ii] the fact that the Plaintiff alleged in the Written Opinion and theWritten Request for Appeal that the article of the Design in the Application and thearticle of the Cited Design are both a "cartridge that is used for injectors, etc." and the"articles are common," supports the determination mentioned in [i] above, and it is notallowed due to estoppel for the Plaintiff to make an allegation different from its
allegation made before the JPO Decision, in this lawsuit.
(2) The aforementioned allegation of the Defendant is examined below. It is found that,in the Written Opinion and the Written Request for Appeal, the Plaintiff alleged that thearticle of the Design in the Application and that of the Cited Design are both a "cartridgethat is used for injectors, etc." and the "articles are common" (Exhibits Otsu 5 and 7).
However, presence of grounds for refusal of the application for design registration
should be determined by the examiners based on their authority (Article 17 of theformer Design Act) and the statements of the applicant in the stage of examination orin the stage of appeal have no binding effect of admission. In addition, in this case,which is an appeal seeking rescission of the JPO Decision wherein the appropriatenessof the establishment of rights is an issue, not the appropriateness of exercise of the right,
the Defendant handled the case as an administrative authority. Concerning the article
embodying the design of the Design in the Application, there is no relationship that the
Defendant's benefits were unjustly harmed by the fact that the Plaintiff's allegation ateach stage of examination and appeal differed from its allegation in this lawsuit. Basedon these facts, it cannot go so far as to say, in relation to the aforementioned allegationof the Plaintiff in the Written Opinion and the Written Request for Appeal, that thePlaintiff is not allowed to make a different allegation from its allegation made before
the JPO Decision by applying the doctrine of estoppel.
In addition, in relation with a third party other than the Defendant, even though thePlaintiff may be restricted when exercising the design right related to the Design in the5Application due to application of the doctrine of estoppel, since the case of determining
appropriateness of restriction on the exercise of rights between specified parties and thecase of determining the appropriateness of granting the right are in different situation,
it cannot be said immediately that the Design in the Application should not be protectedby the registration of the design right.
(3) Furthermore, the subject of examination of the appeal seeking rescission of a JPO
decision is whether the determination in the decision is illegal or not and the s cope islimited to the grounds for refusal that were concretely argued in the trial proceedingsin question (see 1967 (Gyo-Tsu) 28, the judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme
Court of March 10, 1976, Minshu Vol. 30, No. 2, at 79). Each party is not all owed toallege grounds for refusal that are not concretely argued in the trial proceedings;
however, the allegation related to appropriateness of the determination related to thegrounds for refusal that were concretely argued in the trial proceedings and thesubmission of supporting evidence are not restricted. In addition, the allegation of thePlaintiff that the article embodying the design of the Design in the Application is an"exchangeable drug solution container that is inserted inside an automatic i njector, etc."
and is different from the article embodying the Cited Design that is an "injector syringe"
is an allegation related to the "similarity to the Cited Design," which is a ground forrefusal argued concerning the trial proceedings in this case, not an allegation related tothe matters that are not included in the subject of examination. Therefore, there is no
reason to restrict the Plaintiff's allegation from this perspective as well.
(4) Then, based on the assumption that the Plaintiff alleged that the articles embodying
the design of the Design in the Application and the design of the Cited Design are
different, the article embodying the Design in the Application is examined below.
3. (1) Article 24, paragraph (1) of the Design Act stipulates as follows: "The scope of aregistered design must be determined based on the design depicted in the applicationand in the drawing, or represented in the photograph, model, or specimen attached tothe application."
In addition, Article 6, paragraph (1), item (iii) of the former Design Act stipulates
that the "article embodying the design" is to be stated in the documents to be submitted
when filing an application for design registration, and Appended Table 1 of theRegulation for Enforcement of the Design Act stipulates categories to be stated in thecolumn for the articles embodying the design; however, there is no statement
concerning the category of "injector cartridge" in the table (Exhibits Otsu 2, 3, and 15;
in the table, there is also no category including "injector"; as a category that includes
the term "cartridge," only the category of "cartridge for record player" is stated). In
6

Remarks 2 of the table, it is stated that "When filing an application for design
registration for an article that does not belong to any of the article categories listed in
the lower column of this table, the article category shall be stated in the 'articles
embodying the design' column in the written application based on the category
equivalent to the category of the articles listed in the lower column thereof." Then, in
Remarks 39 of Form 2 of said Regulation for Enforcement, it states that "When filingan application for design registration for an article that does not belong to any of thearticle categories listed in the lower column of Appended Table 1, the purpose of theuse of the article, use conditions, and other explanations that aid in understanding thearticle shall be stated in the '[Explanation of the article embodying the design]' column."(2) Based on the provisions mentioned in (1) above, the article embodying the designof the Design in the Application is examined based on the statement of the Written
Application, etc. Looking at the statement in the Written Application, etc. (Exhibit Otsu
1), "イ ン ジ ェ ク ター カ ー ト リッ ジ (injector cartridge)" is stated as the [Article
embodying the design] and both [Explanation of the design] and drawings are as statedin Attachment 1. There is no [Explanation of the article embodying the design] column
in the Written Application, etc. and explanations of the article embodying the relevant
design is not stated in any of the remaining columns. The wording of "インジェクタ
ーカートリッジ (injector cartridge)" and drawings are the only statements suggesting
an article in the Written Application, etc.
(3) Then, the wording " イ ン ジ ェ ク タ ー カ ー ト リ ッ ジ (injector cartridge)" isexamined. This is found to be a combination of two words, " イ ン ジ ェ ク タ ー(injector)" and "カートリッジ (cartridge)."
A. Looking at "インジェクター (injector)" in the Kenkyusha's New English-Japanese
Dictionary, 6th edition (Exhibit Otsu 9), the meaning of the English term "injector,"
which is the origin of a foreign word, "インジェクター (injector)," is explained as "aperson who injects, infuser, syringe." According to evidence (Exhibits Ko 7 and 15), it
is found that, before the Priority Date, there were an infuser of GLP-1 receptor agonist
called "オートインジェクター(auto-injector)", with which a drug solution for one
dose that has been filled in advance is injected automatically only by pressing a button,
for injecting a drug that is used for the treatment of diabetes, and an electric medical
infuser named "アポカインインジェクター(Apokyn injector)" (it is presumed tomean the automatic syringe that is alleged by the Plaintiff). In addition, both thePlaintiff and the Defendant recognize that " イ ン ジ ェ ク タ ー (injector)" means"syringe." Then, in this case, it is assumed that "インジェクター (injector)" means
syringe.
7

B. Looking at "カートリッジ (cartridge)," in the Kenkyusha's New English-Japanese
Dictionary, 6th edition (Exhibit Otsu 9), the meaning of the English word, "cartridge,"
which is the origin of a foreign word, "カートリッジ (cartridge)," is explained as "acylindrical case containing an explosive substance and a bullet for use in a gun, acontainer for drugs" "a small container (for liquid, gas, etc. that is designed to beexchangeable with part of equipment, devices, etc.)"; in the Wisdom English -Japanese
Dictionary (Exhibit Ko 8), the word is explained as "a container for replacement[refill]"; in the New Oxford American Dictionary (Exhibit Ko 9), the word is explainedas "a container that includes rolled film for photographs, ink, other items, or substances
and that is designed so that it is inserted in equipment," respectively. According to theevidence (Exhibit Ko 13), it is found that, before the Priority Date, there was an insulin
preparation called " カ ー ト リ ッ ジ 製 剤 (cartridge preparation)" that was used byattaching it in an exclusive injector." It is also found that, in Patent Gazettes that weredisclosed before the Priority Date (Exhibits Ko 12, 28 through 32), there are statements
concerning "カートリッジ (cartridge)" that means a small container filled with drugs
that are used for automatic syringes, syringe devices, spring drive-type injection
devices, pen-type syringes, and automatic medical injection devices (in thosestatements, there are parts mentioning 薬剤カートリッジ (drug cartridge), 薬物充填カートリッジ (drug filling cartridge), etc.). Then, it is presumed that "カートリッジ (cartridge)" means a small container filled with liquid, gas, etc. for replacement. As
long as referring to the aforementioned evidence, it cannot be found that "カートリッジ (cartridge)" literally means "external cylinder."C. Next, the term "インジェクターカートリッジ (injector cartridge)" is examined.
The Defendant alleged that the statement in the [Article embodying the desi gn] column
in the Written Application is "インジェクターカートリッジ (injector cartridge),"not " イ ン ジ ェ ク タ ー 用 カ ー ト リ ッ ジ (a cartridge for an injector)." However,according to the evidence (Exhibits Ko 17 through 20, 22, and 23), there are cases where
the wording "カートリッジ (cartridge)" is used with a wording indicating the content
of the cartridge, such as "toner cartridge," "ink cartridge," etc. On the other hand, it isfound that there are cases where, concerning a cartridge for a water filter, there is a
registered design titled "浄水器用カートリッジ (cartridge for water filter)" and aregistered design titled "浄水器カートリッジ (water filter cartridge)" and "浄水器カートリッジ (water filter cartridge)" sometimes means a cartridge for a water filter.
Therefore, it is not unnatural to understand that the wording "インジェクターカート
リッジ (injector cartridge)" means a cartridge for an injector. In consideration of thefact that the Plaintiff, who is an applicant, entered as the article embodying the design8

of the Design in the Application not only "インジェクター (injector)," which meansa syringe, but also "インジェクターカートリッジ (injector cartridge)" as well, it isreasonable to find that "インジェクターカートリッジ (injector cartridge)" means a"cartridge for a syringe."
D. Considering A. through C. above together, it is reasonable to find that "インジェク
ターカートリッジ (injector cartridge)" means "a small container filled with liquid,gas, etc. that is exchangeable for a syringe."(4) Based on the above, it must be said that there is an error in the determination of the
JPO Decision that the article embodying the design of the Design in the Application is"an article that has the use and function of an external cylinder of a medical injector."
However, in the Written Application, etc., there is no statement suggesting that " インジェクター (injector)" (syringe) means "automatic syringe" and there is no evidence
enough to find that, at the time of the Priority Date, "インジェクターカートリッジ(injector cartridge)" generally meant a cartridge for an automatic syringe. Therefore, it
is reasonable to find that the article embodying the design of the Design in the
Application should not be limited to automatic syringes, but "a small container filledwith liquid, gas, etc. that is exchangeable for a 'syringe'."(5) The Defendant alleged that the JPO Decision determined that the article embodying
the design of the Design in the Application is "an injector cartridge that has the use andfunction of an external cylinder of a medical injector," not "an external cylinder for a
medical injector" and, therefore, the allegation of the Plaintiff lacks its premise. The
identicalness and similarity of articles should be judged substantially by comparing theuse, function, etc. thereof. However, the JPO Decision determined the relevant article
as an "article that has the use and function of an external cylinder for a medical injector"
and it can be said that the JPO Decision determined it substantially as "an external
cylinder for a medical injector" as alleged by the Plaintiff as above. The aforementioned
allegation of the Defendant only concerns the form but overlooked the essence and is
not reasonable.
The Defendant also alleged that it was necessary to create an[Explanation of thearticle embodying the design] column in the Written Application and provide an
explanation that helps understanding of the article, and to also submit reference figures.
As mentioned in 3 (1) above, Appended Table 1 of the Regulation for Enforcement of
the Design Act contains no category for "インジェクターカートリッジ (injector
cartridge)" and it cannot be said that the term " イ ン ジ ェ ク タ ー カ ー ト リ ッ ジ(injector cartridge)" is a general term. Based on these facts, it can be said that it wasappropriate to provide an [Explanation of the article embodying the design] as alleged9

by the Defendant; however, it cannot be found immediately based on the fact above thatthe article embodying the Design in the Application is an "article that has the use andfunction of an external cylinder for a medical injector" and the allegation of the
Defendant above does not have an impact on the aforementioned finding of the article
embodying the Design in the Application.
4. On the other hand, the JPO Decision determined that the design of "注射器用シリ
ンジ (syringe for an injector)" is the Cited Design from among the designs of syringes
indicated in Attachment 2. The articles related to the part in question are found to havethe use and function of external cylinders for injectors.
Then, the article embodying the design of the Design in the Application and thearticle embodying the design of the Cited Design are not common.
5. Consequently, there is an error in the determination concerning the article embodying
the Design in the Application and the determination concerning the identicalness
between the Design in the Application and the Cited Design in the JPO Decision, andtherefore, the grounds for rescission 1 (errors in determination concerning the article
embodying the Design in the Application and the determination concerning theidenticalness (similarity) between the Design in the Application and the Cited D esign)
are well-grounded.
No. 6 Conclusion
As mentioned above, without the need to make determinations on the remaining
points, the JPO Decision shall be rescinded and the judgment is rendered as indicatedin the main text.
Intellectual Property High Court, Second Division
Presiding judge: HONDA Tomonari
Judge: ASAI Ken
Judge: KATSUMATA Kumiko

10Attachment 1: Design in the Application (Design Application No. 2019-017357) C/P[Article embodying the design] インジェクターカートリッジ (Injector cartridge)[Explanation of the design] Left side view is symmetrical to right side view and,
therefore, it is omitted. Back view is symmetrical to front view and, therefore, it isomitted. All of the nearly horizontal and parallel thin lines, vertical and parallel thinlines, radial thin lines, and arc-shaped thin lines on the drawings are to identify theshape of the three-dimensional cube surface.
Planar view

Perspective view

Bottom side
perspective view

Front view

Bottom side view

11

Right side view

Attachment 2 Cited Design
South Korea's Design and Trademark Gazette that the Patent Information Division of
the Japan Patent Office received on January 23, 2003
Issued on October 30, 2002 (CD-ROM No.: 2002-49)
Design of syringe for injector stated in the design of the injector in Registration No.
30-0309501(Japan Patent Office, Design Division, Well-Known Reference No.HH14693711)

12

Attachment 3 Reference Design
Design Registration No. 1421330 stated in the Design Gazette issued by the Japan
Patent Office on August 11, 2014
[Article embodying the design] 医療用針付シリンジ (Syringe with medical needle)[Explanation of the design] The part shown in a solid line is the part for which design
registration is applied for as a partial design. The dash-dot-dash line shows the border
only between the part for which design registration is applied as partial design and otherparts. Back view is symmetrical to planar view and, therefore, it is omitted. The article
is transparent except for the needle. In the perspective view and A-A part enlarged view,the thin line is to identify the shape of the three-dimensional cube surface.
Perspective view

Planar view

Right side view
Left side view

Front view

Bottom side view

13

Enlarged right side view

A-A part enlarged view

B-B line enlarged cross-section view

C-C line cross-section view

E-E part enlarged view

D-D line cross-section view

F-F part enlarged view

14