Summary of the Judgment
I. Main Text
1. The Defendant shall not use the System.
2. The Defendant shall bear the court costs.
5II. Outline of the Case
1. The Plaintiff is a holder of the Patent for an invention named “Spectacle Lens
Edging System,” and the Defendant allegedly operates the System named“Meganetic.” The Plaintiff asserts that the use of the System by the Defendantconstitutes infringement of the Patent Right. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction

10

pursuant to paragraph (1), Article 100 of Patent Act to claim against theDefendant for the injunction of the use of the System.
2. (1) Descriptions of the scope of claims
Claim 1 of the Patent is described as follows. The invention claimed in
Claim 1 is hereinafter referred to as the “Invention”.

15(A)A spectacle lens edging system comprising:a frame measurement unit for measuring a three-dimensional shape of a rimof a spectacle frame; and a lens edging unit, connected to the frame
measurement unit via a network, for beveling a spectacle lens,(B) wherein the frame measurement unit comprises:
20(B1) a frame tracer configured to obtain rim shape data regarding the threedimensional shape of the rim;(B2) 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, and25(C) wherein the lens edging unit comprises:(C1) an edger configured to bevel a spectacle lens based on prescribed1

edging conditions;(C2) a lens shape measurer configured to obtain lens shape data regarding
the three-dimensional shape of the beveled spectacle lens; and(C3) an edger terminal configured to calculate the lens circumferential length
5along the bevel top of the beveled spectacle lens based on the lens shapedata and to determine that the beveled spectacle lens can be fitted to the rimof the spectacle frame if the difference between the lens circumferential lengthand the rim circumferential length received from the measurement terminal of
the frame measurement unit is within a prescribed range.

10(2) Fulfillment of the Elements of the Invention
Although whether the System satisfies Elements B2 and C3 (only the part “therim circumferential length received from the measurement terminal of theframe measurement unit”) is contested, the parties acknowledge that theSystem satisfies all other elements.

15

3. The points at issue in this case are as follows.
(1) Whether the System satisfies Elements B2 and the part “the rim
circumferential length received from the measurement terminal of the framemeasurement unit” of Element C3:
Does the “Data Management Device” of the System fall under the20“measurement terminal” constituting the “frame measurement unit” of theInvention?
(2) Whether infringement of the Patent Right by the Defendant is found:
Whether shall the Defendant be found to infringe the Patent Right by using
the System with multiple actors?

25

III. Summary of the Determinations concerning the Points at Issue
1. Whether the System satisfies Elements B2 and the part “the rim circumferential2

length received from the measurement terminal of the frame measurement unit” ofElement C3(1) Whether or not the System satisfies each of the aforementioned Elements
is determined by whether or not the “Data Management Device” of the System
5falls under the “measurement terminal” constituting the “frame measurementunit” of the Invention.
The Scope of Claims defines that the “measurement terminal” “calculates therim circumferential length ... based on the rim shape data” obtained by theframe tracer and “transmits data of the rim circumferential length ... to the lens

10edging unit,” with no further limitations. Therefore, a device that calculates therim circumferential length based on the rim shape data and transmits it to thelens edging unit can be regarded as a “measurement terminal.”
Next, the Description also states as follows: when lenses are processed onlywith the shape data about the rim of it, so at the lens processing factory it is15

unable to be confirmed that the processed lenses will be accommodated in
the rim and the processed rim does not fit the spectacle frame ([0005.]),
therefore, the purpose of the Invention is to provide a spectacle lens edging
system that allows spectacle lenses to be fitted to the rim of a spectacle framewith a high degree of certainty and efficiency ([0007.]), as a means of solving

20

the problem, attention has been paid to the fact that the spectacle lens canbe fitted to the rim of the spectacle frame thanks to the flexibility of thespectacle frame if the difference between the rim circumferential length along
the groove of the rim of the spectacle frame and the lens circumferential
length along the bevel top of the spectacle lens is within a predetermined

25range, the Invention adopts the structure to determine whether spectaclelenses will fit a spectacle frame, by using as a decision criterion the gap

3

between the rim circumferential length and the lens circumferential length,
thereby it is possible to allow spectacle lenses to be fitted to the rim of aspectacle frame with a high degree of certainty and efficiency, even when thespectacle lenses are processed at a location where the spectacle frame is not5

immediately at hand ([0009.])
In view of the Scope of Claims and the Description based on the premisethat data is received and transmitted between parties at such distance, the“measurement terminal” constituting the “frame measurement unit “ is not
limited as to the physical location of the device or the manner of connection

10of the said device.
(2) 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
via a network and is not involved in any way in the calculation of a rimcircumferential length. On the other hand, the Data Management Device

15calculates the rim circumferential length using the "rim shape data"transmitted from the frame tracer to calculate the rim circumferential length,
and the Data Management Device transmits the rim circumferential length
data to the Factory PC which constitutes the “lens edging unit” via a network.
Therefore, the Data Management Device should be regarded as falling under20

a "measurement terminal" constituting the "frame measurement unit" of theInvention, and 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

25

Management Device constituting the “frame measurement unit” via a network.
Based on the above, the System is found to satisfy all of the aforementioned

4

elements.
(3) The Defendant asserts that the "measurement terminal" is equipped ineach "frame measurement unit” in the Invention whereas the DataManagement Device of the System is connected to a plurality of Shop PCs
5and constitutes the "lens edging unit" of the Invention.
However, since the Scope of Claims has no limitation in the wording suchthat a "measurement terminal" is separately equipped in each frame
measurement unit, the aforementioned finding is not affected by whether or
not there are a plurality of "frame tracers" connected to the "measurement

10terminal."
Therefore, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion shall not be admitted.
2

Whether the Defendant infringes the Patent Right in the System

involving multiple actors(1) A system is an invention of a product, and in order for a product to fall15

within the technical scope of the invention, the product must satisfy all of theelements of the invention, and infringement of a patent on an invention of aproduct occurs when a product that satisfies all of the elements is produced,used, assigned, or leased. Therefore, infringement of a patent on an inventionof a product is usually established by a single actor which produces, uses,

20

assigns, or leases a product that satisfies all of the said elements. On theother hand, if the production, use, assignment, or lease of a product thatsatisfies all of the said elements cannot be formed without combining the actsof multiple actors that produced, used, assigned, or leased a product that
does not satisfy the said elements, patent infringement will not, in principle,

25

be established.
However, it should be construed that, even in cases where the production,5

use, assignment, or lease of a product that satisfies all of the elements occurs
for the first time through the combined acts of multiple actors, if the acts ofthese multiple actors can be regarded as interrelated and integrated and if
one of the multiple actors is aware of acts corresponding to the said elements
5and makes use of the acts of the other actors to achieve the said elements,
one of those multiple actors can be regarded as an entity who jointly infringes
the said patent with other actors.
(2) Applying the foregoing theory to this case, the System was developed byTurtle pursuant to a contract with Donkey, and Donkey also knows much about

10the System. In addition, under the contract with Turtle, Donkey makes Turtle
operate the Data Management Device of the System, and under thetransaction 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 "frame tracers" that

15

constitute the "frame measurement unit" of the Invention. Meanwhile, Donkey
itself operates the System that supplies processed lenses by using theFactory PC, the edger, and the lens shape measurer that correspond to the“edger terminal,” “edger,” and “lens shape measurer,” respectively, that
constitute the “lens edging unit” of the Invention. The acts of Donkey, Turtle

20and optician’s shops are therefore regarded as integrated, and there isrelationship that Donkey is aware of the System as a whole, and makes useof the acts of Turtle and the optician’s shops to achieve the System while eachof Turtle and the optician’s shops makes use of the acts of Donkey.
Based on the above, Donkey is found to infringe the Patent Right jointly with

25

Turtle and the optician’s shops.
(3) The Defendant asserts that the optician’s shops, Turtle, and Donkey are6involved in just part of the System as totally individual and independent actors
and that they do not share the same subjective intention to act jointly.
As stated above, however, in pursuing Donkey's liability, the acts performedby the optician’s shops, Turtle, and Donkey can be regarded as interrelated
5and integrated and it should be construed that it is sufficient that Donkey has
an intention just to make use of the other actors. Therefore, it is not necessarythat all of the actors involved in acting jointly mutually have a further intention
to act jointly with all of them individually.
Therefore, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion shall not be admitted.

105. Conclusion
Based on all of the foregoing, infringement of the Patent Right by theDefendant is found and the Plaintiff’s claim has a ground. Therefore, the court
renders a judgment as indicated in the main text.

7