Mock Triall SCENE 1
2nd Date for Oral Argument - Explanatory Session -l Procedures thereafterl SCENE 2
3rd Date for Oral Argument - Rendering of Judgment -1

SCENE 1

2nd Date for OralArgument
September 16, 2022

- Explanatory Session SCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－2

○ Procedures to be conducted on
this date
Confirmation of the fact
to be proven

Confirmation of the outcome ofproceedings to arrange issues
and evidence and the fact to beproven in the oral argument

Examination of evidence

Examination of evidence related tothe fact to be proven

Explanatory Session

Final presentation for summarizing
and orally explaining allegations ofboth parties

Participation ofTechnical Advisors

Explanation on the specialized,
technical matters in dispute

SCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－3

Confirmation of the fact
to be provenl Point at issue 1(Whether the System Satisfies Elements of the Invention)
Ø Does the “Data Management Device” of the System fall under the“measurement terminal” constituting the “frame measurementunit” of the Present Inventionl Point at issue 2(Whether Patent Infringement is established)Ø Whether the defendant infringes the Patent Right in the System
involving multiple actors

SCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－4

Plaintiff’s allegations ①
Point at issue 1 - Descriptions of the Scope of Claims(B2) (wherein the frame measurement unit comprises:)a measurement terminal configured
to calculate the rim circumferential length along a groove of the rim
based on the rim shape data andto transmit the data of the rim circumferential length to the lens edging
unit,and(C3)(wherein the lens edging unit comprises:)
an edger terminal configured
to calculate the lens circumferential length along the bevel top of thebeveled spectacle lens based on the lens shape data andto determine that the beveled spectacle lens can be fitted to the rim of
the spectacle frame if the difference between the lens circumferential
length and the rim circumferential length received from the measurement
terminal of the frame measurement unit is within a prescribed range.
SCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－5

Plaintiff’s allegations ②
Point at issue 1 - Descriptions of the Specification[Problem to be solved by the Invention]
When lenses are processed outside the optician’s shop, the lensprocessing factory will not have the spectacle frame itself, so at thelens processing factory it is unable to confirm that the processed
lenses will be accommodated in the rim, resulting in poor yield (0005).
[Effect of the Invention]
According to the present invention, in determining whether lenses
will fit a frame, by using as a decision criterion the gap between therim circumferential length of a frame and the lens circumferential
length along the bevel top of a lens, it is possible to allow lenses to be
fitted to a frame with a high degree of certainty and efficiency (0009).

SCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－

6

Plaintiff’s allegations ③
Point at issue 1 - Comparison of the Invention and the System
The Invention

SCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－

The System

7Plaintiff’s allegations ④
Point at issue 1 - Applicability• Viewing the System from the functional aspect,① The “rim shape data” measured by the frame
tracer at the optician’s shop is transmitted to thedata management device.
② The measured data is transmitted from the datamanagement device to the lens edging unit.
③ The Shop PC at the optician's shop just relays
the data and does not perform any substantialfunction in the relationship to the scope ofclaims.
• Therefore, the data management device falls underthe “measurement terminal.”
SCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－

8

Plaintiff’s allegations ⑤
Point at issue 2 - Joint Patent Infringement• Joint relevance① Only objective relevance is sufficient for joint
relevance to be established.
② Even if subjective joint relevance is required,
if there is a continuous business relationshipbetween the two parties, they are mutuallyaware of the content of their acts, andtherefore subjective joint relevance is found.

• Even if there is no joint relevance, if a party uses
another party as a pawn or tool, the act is deemed
to be the act of the party who uses the other party.
SCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－9

Plaintiff’s allegations ⑥
Point at issue 2 - Applicability• Since the defendant entrusted Turtle to develop theSystem and operate the data management device andOptician’s shops have entered into transaction
agreements with the defendant, having been provided
with the Software and making the Shop PCs into
devices of the System, they are jointly using the entire
System.
• Subjectively, there is a subjective joint relevance
between the defendant and Turtle, and between thedefendant and Optician’s shops, as each recognizes theother's role.
• The defendant can be regarded as having used Turtle
and the Optician’s shops as a pawn or tool.
SCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－

10

Defendant’s allegations ①
Point at issue 1 - Structure of the SystemA

A spectacle lens edging system comprising:... a frame measurement unit ... and a lens edging unit,B
wherein the frame measurement unit comprises:
B1 ... a frame tracer, andB2 a measurement terminal configured to calculate the rim circumferential
length along a groove of the rim based on the rim shape data and to transmit
data of the rim circumferential length to the lens edging unit,andC
wherein the lens edging unit comprises:
C1 ... an edger
C2 ... a lens shape measurer, andC3 ... an edger terminal configured to calculate the lens circumferential length
along the bevel top of the beveled spectacle lens based on the lens shape data
and to determine that the beveled spectacle lens can be fitted to the rim of thespectacle frame if the difference between the lens circumferential length andthe rim circumferential length received from the measurement terminal of
the frame measurement unit is within a prescribed range.

Construction of (a system comprising) all elements => “Production”
Use and benefits of (a system comprising) all elements => “Use”
SCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－

11

Defendant’s allegations ②
Point at issue 1 - The System is different from the Invention

The Invention

The System

フレーム測定ユニット10

フレーム測定ユニット10
12

11

11
1

フレームトレーサ

測定用
端末

測定用
端末

Rim circumferential length
data

フレームトレーサ

12ShopPC
測定用

11ShopPC
測定用

1
フレームトレーサ

端末

端末

・・・・・・・・・・・・

Calculation ofrim circumferential length

90

90
レンズ加工ユニット50

51

57
加工管理サーバ

53

レンズ加工工場 51
加工機

53
55

52

レンズ形状測定機

1211フレームトレーサ

レンズ加工ユニット50

加工機

フレーム測定ユニット10

フレーム測定ユニット101252
加工用
端末

加工用
端末

・・・

・・・

・・・

レンズ形状測定機

51 ofCalculation
rim circumferential
length
加工機

53

Data
Manage加工管理サーバ
ment
Device55

52

Rim circum- 加工用
ferential length 端末
レンズ形状測定機
data

・・・・・・

57

レンズ加工工場 51
加工機

53

Factory
加工用
PC
端末

52
レンズ形状測定機

・・・

The measurement terminal of theThe Data Management
frame measurement unit calculates
Device of the lens edging
the rim circumferential length andtransmits the rim circumferential
unit calculates the rim
length data to the lens edging unit
circumferential length(Element B2/C3, Specification 0017/0019)
SCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－

12

Defendant’s allegations ③
Point at issue 2 - The System is not “Used”
Optician's
shop A

Optician's
shop B
フレーム測定ユニット10

フレーム測定ユニット10
12

11

Optician's
shop A/B are
unaware of
Turtle's
existence

フレームトレーサ

12

Shop
PC
測定用

ShopPC
測定用端末

端末

11
1
フレームトレーサ

・・・・・・

90

Optician's shop A/B
are valued
customers ofDonkey, and they are
not in a relationshipwhereby Donkey canissue orders to A/B.

レンズ加工ユニット50
51

加工機

53

Data
Management
加工管理サーバDevice
55

52

レンズ形状測定機

加工用
端末・・・

Turtle・・・・・・

Donkey cannot
operate DataManagement
Device57

レンズ加工工場 51
加工機

53

Factory
加工用
PC
端末

52
レンズ形状測定機

DonkeySCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－13

〇 Q and A Sessionl Question 1 - “Units”
Reasons that various devices are considered to fallunder either "Frame measurement unit" or "Lens
edging unit"

Frame measurement
unit

SCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－

Lens edging unit

14

〇 Q and A Sessionl Question 2 - “Data Management Device”
The reason that the Data Management Device isconfigured to “Calculate rim circumferential length”

Data ManagementDevice
Calculate rim circumferential length

SCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－

15

〇 Q and A Sessionl Question 3－ “Determination of whether
processing is possible”
Positioning of determination of whether processing
is possible in the spectacle lens edging system

Edgingmanagement
serverSCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－16

〇 Q and A Sessionl Question 4－“Circumferential length”
Technical significance of focusing on circumferencerather than shape
The difference
between therim circumferential
length and thelens circumferential
length is NOT
within aprescribedrange.

Not fittedFitted

SCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－

The difference
between the rim
circumferential
length and thelens circumferential lengthis within aprescribedrange.
17

〇 Q and A Sessionl Question 5－”Frame tracer”
Impact of measurement errors by the frame tracer

SCENE 1 ～ 2nd Date for Oral Argument－Explanatory Session－18

〇 Procedure thereafter
Date for Settlement
September 27, 2021

Consultation for Settlement

Termination of procedure forSettlement
19

SCENE 2

3rd Date for Oral
Argument
October 27, 2022

- Rendering of Judgement SCENE 2 ～ 3rd Date for Oral Argument Rendering of Judgment－20

- Rendering of Judgement -l Main Text
1. The Defendant shall not use the System.
2. The Defendant shall bear the court costs.

SCENE 2 ～ 3rd Date for Oral Argument Rendering of Judgment－1

Summary of the Reason(Point at issue 1. Whether the System Satisfies
Elements of the Invention)l Whether or not the System satisfies Elements B2 and C2 is determinedby whether or not the “Data Management Device” of the Systemcorresponds to the “measurement terminal” constituting the “framemeasurement unit” of the Invention.
lThe Scope of Claims defines that the “measurement terminal”“calculates the rim circumferential length ... based on the rim shapedata” obtained by the frame tracer and “transmits data of the rim
circumferential length ... to the lens edging unit,” with no further
limitations. Therefore, a device that calculates the rim circumferential
length based on the rim shape data and transmits it to the lens edgingunit can be regarded as a “measurement terminal.”

SCENE 2 ～ 3rd Date for Oral Argument Rendering of Judgment－2

Summary of the Reason(Point at issue 1. Whether the System Satisfies
Elements of the Invention)l In the Description, there is a statement that the Invention isbased on the premise that data is received and transmitted
between parties at such distance.
l In view of the Scope of Claims and the Description, whether
or not falling under the “measurement terminal” is not
limited as to the physical location of the device or themanner of connection of the said device.

SCENE 2 ～ 3rd Date for Oral Argument Rendering of Judgment－3

Summary of the Reason(Point at issue 1. Whether the System Satisfies
Elements of the Invention)l In the System, the Shop PC at the optician's shop just relays the “rimshape data” measured by the frame tracer to the data management
device. On the other hand, the data management device calculates therim circumferential length using the "rim shape data" transmitted to
calculate the rim circumferential length, and this data management
device transmits the rim circumferential length data to the Factory PC
which constitutes the “lens edging unit” via a network.
l In the System, the data management device that corresponds to the"measurement terminal" constituting the "frame measurement unit”
calculates the rim circumferential length and the Factory PC
constituting the “lens edging unit” receives the rim circumferential
length data from the data management device constituting the “framemeasurement unit” via a network.
SCENE 2 ～ 3rd Date for Oral Argument Rendering of Judgment－4

Summary of the Reason(Point at issue 2. Whether Patent Infringement isestablished)l If the production, use, assignment, or lease of a product that satisfies
all of the said elements cannot be formed without combining the acts ofmultiple actors that produced, used, assigned, or leased a product,
patent infringement will not, in principle, be established.
l Even in cases where the production, use, assignment, or lease of a
product that satisfies all of the elements occurs for the first timethrough the combined acts of multiple actors, if the acts of these
multiple actors can be regarded as interrelated and integrated and if
one of multiple actors is aware of acts corresponding to the said
elements and makes use of the acts of the other actors to achieve thesaid elements, one of those multiple actors can be regarded as anentity who jointly infringes the said patent with other actors.

SCENE 2 ～ 3rd Date for Oral Argument Rendering of Judgment－5

Summary of the Reason(Point at issue 2. Whether Patent Infringement isestablished)l The System was developed by Turtle pursuant to a contract withDonkey, and Donkey also knows much about the System.
l Under the contract with Turtle, Donkey makes Turtle operate the data
management device of the System, and under the transaction
agreements with optician’s shops, Donkey provides the optician’s
shops with the Software and makes them install it in the Shop PCs,
thereby allowing them to use the "measurement terminals" and "frametracers" that constitute the "frame measurement unit" of the Invention.
l Donkey operates the System that supplies processed lenses by using
the Factory PC, the edger, and the lens shape measurer that
correspond to the “edger terminal,” “edger,” and “lens shapemeasurer,” respectively, that constitute the “lens edging unit” of theInvention.
SCENE 2 ～ 3rd Date for Oral Argument - Rendering ofJudgment－6

Summary of the Reason(Point at issue 2. Whether Patent Infringement isestablished)l The acts of Donkey, Turtle and optician’s shops are regarded
as integrated, and there is relationship that Donkey is awareof the System as a whole, and makes use of the acts ofTurtle and the optician’s shops to achieve the System while
each of Turtle and the optician’s shops makes use of theacts of Donkey.
l Donkey is found to infringe the Patent Right jointly withTurtle and the optician’s shops.

SCENE 2 ～ 3rd Date for Oral Argument Rendering of Judgment－7

Summary of the Reason(Point at issue 2. Whether Patent Infringement isestablished)l The Defendant asserts that it is necessary that all of theactors involved in acting jointly share the same subjective
intention. However, in pursuing Donkey's liability, the acts
performed by the optician’s shops, Turtle, and Donkey canbe regarded as interrelated and integrated and it should beconstrued that it is sufficient that Donkey has an intention
just to make use of the other actors. Therefore, it is notnecessary that all of the actors involved in acting jointly
mutually have a further intention to act jointly with all ofthem individually.
SCENE 2 ～ 3rd Date for Oral Argument Rendering of Judgment－8

Thank you!

9