Patent
Right

Date
Case number

May 18, 2023
2023 (Ne) 10009

Court

Intellectual Property
High Court, Second
Division- A case in which the court dismissed an appeal filed by Appellant, a patentee who
had lost a patent infringement suit between the same parties as in the appeal andwho claimed, on the ground of the same patent right, that the manufacture and saleof smartphones by Appellees infringe on the patent right, the court holding that
Appellant's demand for compensation falls under dragging up of a dispute and isunlawful.
Case type: Compensation
Result: Overuling of prior instance judgment, Dismissed without prejudice
Related rights, etc.: Patent No. 4611388
Judgment of the prior instance: Tokyo District Court 2022 (Wa) 11889, judgment
rendered on December 21, 2022
Summary of the Judgment
1.

In the present case, Appellant, who is the patentee of a patent for an invention

titled "Input Support Computer Program, Input Support Computer System", argued
that the smartphones (three types; Defendant's Product) manufactured and sold byAppellees belong to the technical scope of the inventions pertaining to Claims 1 and 3(Invention) of the scope of claims for the Patent, and that the manufacture of
Defendant's Product by Appellee B and the sale of the same by Appellee A infringeon the Patent Right, thereby demanding against Appellees, pursuant to Article 709 of
the Civil Code and Article 102, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act, for joint payment ofdamages in the amount of JPY 2,507,685 and the relevant late payment charge.
In the judgment in prior instance, the court dismissed Appellant's claims entirely
by holding that Defendant's Product does not belong to the technical scope of theInvention, and Appellant filed an appeal (Appeal).
2.

In the judgment of the present case, the court held that Appellant's claims are

unlawful and overruled the judgment in prior instance, and dismissed the Appeal.
Grounds for the ruling are as follows.
The Case of 2020 (Tokyo District Court 2020 (Wa) 15464, judgment rendered on
July 14, 2021; Intellectual Property High Court 2021 (Ne) 10066, judgment renderedon February 8, 2022; both judgments made final and binding) and the present caseinvolve the same parties, and the patent right which is allegedly infringed is the same ,and the two cases also share the issue of whether the allegedly infringing productbelongs to the technical scope of each of the inventions of Claims 1 and 3 in the scopeof claims for the Patent.
iDefendant's Product, which is the subject product of the present case, is of thesame series as Defendant's Product in Previous Suit, which is the subject product of
the Case of 2020.

As such, it is assumed that Defendant's Product was released later

than Defendant's Product in Previous Suit.

However, it does not seem that any

significant change was made to the specification of Defendant's Product in Previous
Suit, particularly with regard to the app, which is the same and which was raised as an
issue (both being AQUOS Home).

Although the versions may be different, there

does not seem to be any significant change in specifications, and the operation which
was raised as an issue is the same or at least substantively the same in the two cases.
Furthermore, the point at issue in the Case of 2020 and the present case concerns
the existence of the Operation Menu Information in the app called "AQUOS Home",
which is installed in the subject products.

As such, the dispute at issue is the sameor at least substantively the same in the two cases, and furthermore, the claims madeby Appellant concerning the point in dispute are substantively the same in both cases.
In that case, the claims made by Appellant in the present case are merely to dragup Appellant's claims in the Case of 2020, in which the court's determination , that
Appellant's demand against Appellees for compensation on the ground of tort ofinfringement of the Patent Right is groundless, became final and binding.

It ispresumed that Appellant filed the Appeal while being fully aware that the structure of
Defendant's Product in Previous Suit, which supports the judgment in the Case of2020 as to the non-existence of Operation Menu Information, is substantively thesame as the structure of Defendant's Product, and that for this reason, Defendant's
Product does not infringe on the Patent Right for the same reason as that whichapplies to Defendant's Product in Previous Suit.

As such, it must be said thatexamining Appellant's claims in the present case significantly damages the reasonable
expectations of Appellees for a dispute which was resolved when the judgment in theCase of 2020 became final and binding, and goes against the justice of a legal action.
Accordingly, it must be said that Appellant's demand for compensation on the
ground of tort of infringement of Patent Right in the present case and making relevantclaims are merely to drag up a dispute from the Case of 2020, and examining
Appellant's demand between Appellant and Appellees, who are parties to said case,goes against the principle of good faith in a legal action and shall not be permitted.
In view of the above, the court finds Appellant's claims to be entirely unlawful
and dismisses them.

Since the judgment in prior instance, which found such claims

to be lawful and rendered a judgment on the merits, is unjustified, the court overrules
the judgment in prior instance, dismisses Appellant's claims entirely, and renders aii

judgment as per the main text.

iii

Judgment rendered on May 18, 2023
2023 (Ne) 10009 Appeal Case of Seeking Damages(Prior instance: Tokyo District Court 2022 (Wa) 11889)
Date of conclusion of oral argument: April 11, 2023
Judgment
Appellant: Core Appli Inc.
Appellee: KDDI Corporation(hereinafter referred to as "Appellee KDDI")
Appellee: Sharp Corporation(hereinafter referred to as "Appellee Sharp", andas "Appellees" together with Appellee KDDI)

Main text
1.

Judgment in prior instance shall be overruled.

2.

Appellant's claims shall be dismissed entirely.

3.

Court costs throughout the first and second instances shall be borne byAppellant.
Facts and reasonsAbbreviations of the terms used herein and their meanings shall be as usedin the judgment in prior instance other than the meanings provided herein.
"Plaintiff" according to the judgment in prior instance shall be read as "Appellant",and "Defendants", "Defendant KDDI", and "Defendant Sharp" according to the
judgment in prior instance shall be read as "Appellees", "Appellee KDDI", and"Appellee Sharp", respectively.

"Attachment/attached" as used in the judgment inprior instance to refer to citations shall all be corrected to "Attachment to the
judgment in prior instance" or "attached to the judgment in prior instance".
No. 1

Object of the appeal

1.

Judgment in prior instance shall be reversed.

2.

Appellees shall jointly pay to Appellant a sum of JPY 2,507,685 and the money

accrued thereon at the rate of 3% per annum from June 7, 2022 until payment
1completion.
3.

Court costs throughout the first and second instances shall be borne byAppellees.
4.

Declaration of provisional execution for paragraph 2 above

No. 2
1.

Outline of the case
Summary of the caseIn the present case, Appellant, who is the patentee of a patent (Patent) for an

invention titled "Input Support Computer Program, Input Support Computer System"(Invention), argued that Defendant's Product (smartphones; Serial Nos. SHV44,
SHV45, and SHV46) manufactured by Appellee Sharp and sold by Appellee KDDIbelongs to the technical scope of the invention for the Patent, and that the
manufacture and sale of Defendant's Product fall under infringement of the right inPatent (Patent Right), and demanded against Appellees, pursuant to Article 709 of the
Civil Code and Article 102, paragraph (3) of the Patent Act, for joint payment of asum of JPY 2,507,685 and the late payment charge accrued thereon at the rate of 3%
per annum as prescribed by the Civil Code for the period from June 7, 2022 (the day
following the date of delivery of a complaint), which is after the day of the tort, until
payment completion.
In the judgment in prior instance, the court dismissed Appellant's claims byholding that Defendant's Product does not belong to the technical scope of theInvention, and Appellant filed an appeal (Appeal).
2.

Basic facts, points of dispute, and parties' arguments on points of dispute
Other than the following corrections to be made as well as the addition of

supplementary claims made by parties in the present instance as described below in 3,
the content indicated in paragraphs 2 to 4 of "No. 2

Outline of the case, etc."

under "Facts and reasons" of the judgment in prior instance shall apply and is citedherein.
(1) On line 13 on page 2 of the [Japanese text of the] judgment in prior instance,correct "communication equipment and apparatus" to "communication machines andapparatus".
(2) On line 16 on page 7 of the [Japanese text of the] judgment in prior instance,
insert "Exhibit Ko 41" in front of "Exhibit Otsu 3", and on lines 24 and 25 on thesame page, insert "apps and functions" after "a plurality of", and on line 2 on page 8,
insert "etc." after "software", and on line 3 on the same page, insert "consists of ascreen (which may contain a plurality of page screens inside) called 'workspace'" after2

"Home App", and on line 15 on the same page, delete "the touch panel above".
(3) On line 5 on page 9 of the [Japanese text of the] judgment in prior instance,correct "center" to "upper part", and on line 16 on page 10, correct "3 (1) A below" to"3 (2) A below", and on the same line, correct "Defendant's claims (4 (1) below)" to"Appellees' claims (4 (2) A below)".
(4) At the end of line 21 on page 10 of the [Japanese text of the] judgment inprior instance, start a new line and add "(1) Legality of the Appeal (defense on meritsof the case)", and on line 22 on the same page, correct "(1)" to "(2)", and on line 4 onpage 11, correct "Constituent Feature [E]" to "Constituent Feature [B]", and on line 7
on the same page, correct "Constituent Feature [F]" to "Constituent Feature [E]", andon line 13 on the same page, correct "(2)" to "(3)", and at the end of line 20 on thesame page, start a new line and add "(4) Damage suffered by Appellant, and theamount thereof (Issue 3)".
(5) At the end of line 21 on page 11 of the judgment in prior instance, start a
new line and add the following.
"(1) Legality of the Appeal (defense on merits of the case)(Appellees' claims)
A. In the present case, Appellant demanded against Appellees, whomanufacture or sell Defendant's Product, for compensation on the ground of patent
infringement concerning Patent (Patent No. 4611388).

In the past, Appellant has

filed several suits of the same or similar type concerning the Patent against each ofAppellee Sharp and Appellee KDDI as described below.
(A) Intellectual Property High Court 2015 (Ne) 10047, judgment ren dered on
September 30, 2015 (Defendant/Appellee: Appellee KDDI)(B) Intellectual Property High Court 2017 (Ne) 10037, judgment rendered on
November 28, 2017 (Defendant/Appellee: Appellee KDDI and non-party to the suit,
LG Electronics Japan Kabushiki Kaisha)(C) Intellectual Property High Court 2017 (Ne) 10038, judgment rendered on
November 28, 2017 (Defendant/Appellee: Appellee KDDI)(D) Intellectual Property High Court 2019 (Ne) 10081, judgment rendered on
November 25, 2020 (Defendant/Appellee: Appellee Sharp)(E) Intellectual Property High Court 2021 (Ne) 10066, judgment rendered on
February 8, 2022 (Defendant/Appellee: Appellee Sharp and Appellee KDDI) (Exhibit
Otsu 1).
B. In each of the above suits, Appellant argued that there was, as in the case of
the present suit, infringement of the Patent by the scrolling, which is performed upon3

moving an icon or making a short-cut on a home app on a smartphone.

In particular,

AQUOS Home (Home App) carried by the smartphone models "SHV39" to "SHV43",
which were the subject products of the most recent suit in 2020 (Tokyo District Court
2020 (Wa) 15464; judgment rendered by the court of second instance as describedabove in A (E); hereinafter referred to as "Case of 2020"), is nearly identical, except
for minor parts, to the one carried by the smartphone models "SHV44" to "SHV46"(Defendant's Product), which are the subject products of the present suit.
Furthermore, since Appellant's demand in the present case is not made about
infringement on the ground of said "minor differences" and since the interpretation
and application of "Operation Menu Information", which is the greatest point ofdispute in the present suit, was also the greatest point of dispute in the Case of 2020,
Appellant had made sufficient arguments and provided sufficient evidence during theexamination of the Case of 2020 regarding the same point of dispute as the point ofdispute of the present case.
Since a smartphone undergoes minor updates which are released several times
each year, Appellant may have to file suits repeatedly in the future each time theproduct number changes, and in fact, such a situation is likely to occur.
It must be said that, in light of the purport and purpose of the court system, it isseriously inappropriate to repeatedly file a suit on patent infringement concerning
smartphone home apps over the years simply for the reason that the subject products
are not completely identical.
(Appellant's claims)"As per the Attachment, 'Structure of Defendant's Product, etc. pertaining toAppellant's claims, etc.', Structure [a1] of the subject product in the Case of 2020 isdifferent from Structures [a1], [a1'], and [a1"] in the present suit.

As such, the twocomputer programs exist in computer systems with completely different physicalstructures, and in particular, the structure in the present suit has been changed
significantly by the addition of pixel numbers in a screen.

In the present suit, thereis the addition, as per said Attachment, of Structures [a3], [a3'], [a3"], and [p1] to [p3],and new determinations must be made regarding Constituent Features [B], [E], [F],and [G].
"Appellees make arguments such as that Appellant has filed several suits
pertaining to a smartphone.

However, this only means that Appellees manufactureand sell a plurality of products, which are highly likely to infringe on the Patent, ofdifferent structures.

As such, if products have different structures, it is necessary to

make determinations differently for each product."4

(6) On line 22 on page 11 of the [Japanese text of the] judgment in priorinstance, correct "(1)" to "(2)", and on line 24 on the same page, correct "(2)" to "(3)",and in Attachment, "Parties' claims on technical scope", to the judgment in priorinstance, and the Attachment, "Parties' claims on grounds for invalidation", to the
judgment in prior instance, correct the respective "(Defendant's claims)" to"(Appellees' claims)", and on line 7 on page 44, correct "Official Gazette" to"Specifications", and on line 21 on page 56, line 20 on page 60, line 17 on page 61,
line 12 on page 62, line 22 on page 73, and line 1 on page 76, correct the respective"Defendant" to "Appellees".
(7) At the end of line 25 on page 11 of the [Japanese text of the] judgment inprior instance, start a new line and add the following.
"(4) Damage suffered by Appellant, and the amount thereof (Issue 3)(Appellant's claims)
The sales of Defendant's Product by Appellee KDDI exceeded a total of JPY
40,700,000,000.

Given that the average royalty rate in the field of computer

technology is 3.8%, and that Appellees, in spite of being aware of the Patent Rightfrom more than 10 years ago, manufactured and sold products, on which Launcher 3
is installed, and have continued the act of infringing the Patent Right, it is reasonable
to determine that the license fee rate for the Patent Right in the present case shall be atleast 15%.

In that case, the amount of damage suffered by Appellant pursuant to

Article 102, paragraphs (3) and (4) of the Patent Act shall be at least JPY
6,105,000,000.
Appellant demands against Appellees, from the above amount of damages, asum of JPY 2,507,685, corresponding to the license fee for 100 units of Defendant's
Product, and the late payment charge accrued thereon.
(Appellees' claims)
Disagree."(Omitted)
No. 3

Judgment of this court

1.

Legality of the Appeal (defense on merits of the case)(1)

In the case where the demands made in a subsequently filed suit or the claims

made in such suit are merely to drag up the same demands or claims from the previous
suit, it is reasonable to interpret that the demands made in a subsequent suit or theclaims made in such suit shall not be permissible in light of the principle of faith and5trust (refer to Supreme Court 1974 (O) 331, judgment rendered on September 30,
1976 by the First Petty Bench / Minshu Vol. 30, No. 8, page 799; Supreme Court
1974 (O) 163, 164, judgment rendered on March 24, 1977 by the First Petty Bench /Saibanshu, Minji No. 120, page 299).
(2)

Case of 2020 (Exhibits Otsu 1 and 2)
A. In the Case of 2020, Appellant argued that the manufacture by Appellee

Sharp of smartphones (Model Nos. SHV39, SHV40, SHV41, SHV42, and SHV43;
hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendant's Product in Previous Suit") and thesale by Appellee KDDI of the smartphones infringe on the Patent Right, anddemanded against Appellees for compensation on the ground of tort of patent
infringement.
In the Case of 2020, it became an issue whether the Defendant's Product inPrevious Suit is covered by the technical scope of the inventions of Claims 1, 3, and 4
in the scope of claims for the Patent.

Specifically, the point in dispute was whether

or not the app called "AQUOS Home" (hereinafter referred to as "App in Previous
Suit"), which was installed on the Defendant's Product in Previous Suit, has Operation
Menu Information (Issue 1-3 in the Case of 2020).
Regarding this point in dispute, Appellant argued that the words, "to enable ...",
indicate a purpose, objective, standard, or the like, so that there is no need for the
Operation Menu Information to be something from which a user can understand all of
the commands to be executed, and that it is sufficient if there are words suggestingthat the purpose or objective is to enable the user to understand the content of thecommand to be executed, so that the Partially-Shown Page (corresponding to the"Partially-Shown Image" in the present case) on the App in Previous Suit in the
Defendant's Product in Previous Suit falls under "Operation Menu Information".
B. Tokyo District Court, which is the court of first instance in the Case of 2020,
found as follows concerning how the App in Previous Suit works in Defendant's
Product in Previous Suit: "[1] When a user touches, with a finger, an icon displayedon a screen on the App in Previous Suit in a manner that takes a certain time (long press), it causes the icon to make a transition to a movable state, and [2] the icon
moves around by following the finger, and when the icon is travels a certain distanceto the right or to the left by following the finger, the screen enters a minimized mode
and is minimized to 90% of the size of the page being shown, and a part of the screenof an adjacent page (Partially-Shown Page) is displayed on the right edge or left edgeof the screen, and [3] when the icon is moved further in such direction, the screen ofan adjacent page is scrolled in such direction and displayed."6

A user who sees therectangular part, which is the Partially-Shown Page, will not be able to understandwhat kind of command the display is meant to execute, so that the court determinedthat the image of the Partially-Shown Page on the Defendant's Product in Previous
Suit cannot be acknowledged as having the Operation Menu Information ofConstituent Feature [B] in Inventions 1 and 3 (Exhibit Otsu 2; Tokyo District Court
2020 (Wa) 15464, judgment rendered on July 14, 2021).

The above determination

was upheld by the appeal court, Intellectual Property High Court, in the judgment
rendered on February 8, 2022 (Exhibit Otsu 1), and the judgment became final andbinding without an appeal being filed (the entire import of the oral argument).
(3)

The present case
A. In the present case, Appellant argued that the manufacture by Appellee

Sharp of smartphones (Model Nos. SHV44, SHV45, and SHV46; Defendant's
Product) and the sale by Appellee KDDI of the smartphones infringe on the Patent
Right, and demanded against Appellees for compensation on the ground of tort ofpatent infringement.
In the present case, the issue concerns whether or not Defendant's Product iscovered by the technical scope of the inventions of Claims 1 and 3 (Invention) in thescope of claims for the Patent.

Specifically, the point in dispute was whether or not

the app called "AQUOS Home" (Home App), which is installed on Defendant's
Product, has Operation Menu Information.
Appellant's claim concerning Issue 1 (whether or not Defendant's Productbelongs to the technical scope of the Invention) in the present case is as indicated in
Attachment, "Parties' claims on technical scope", to the judgment in prior instance,
and in the above No. 2-3.
B. The operation of Home App in Defendant's Product is as outlined below(item (6) C of Basic facts).
"[1] When a user gives a long-press to a shortcut icon displayed on a screen on
Home App, the shortcut icon becomes movable by following the movement of thefinger, etc. on the touch panel, and [2] when the shortcut icon travels a certain
distance, a minimized mode starts and the center page screen being shown isdisplayed in a minimal mode, and a part of the screen of an adjacent page (PartiallyShown Image) is displayed on the right edge or left edge of the screen, and [3] when
the shortcut icon is moved further into the domain of the Partially-Shown Image, theadjacent page is displayed."In the judgment in prior instance, the court held as follows: It cannot be said
that a user who saw the Partially-Shown Image would be able to understand that it is7

showing a part of a page on the right or left, and even if the user can understand thesituation, it cannot be said that the structure is such that it enables the user tounderstand that a command is displayed, indicating that a short-cut icon should be
dragged to the domain of the image so as to scroll to the corresponding page, As such,
the Partially-Shown Image of Defendant's Product does not fall under Operation Menu
Information, and it cannot be acknowledged that Defendant's Product has the
Operation Menu Information of Constituent Features [B], [E], [F], and [G] o f theInvention.
(4)

Comparison between Case of 2020 and the present case
The Case of 2020 and the present case have the same parties involved, and thepatent right which is deemed to be the subject of infringement is the same in the twocases, and the two cases also share the issue of whether or not the allegedly infringing
product belongs to the technical scope of each of the inventions of Claims 1 and 3 ofthe relevant scope of claims.
Defendant's Product, which is the subject product of the present case, is of thesame series as the Defendant's Product in Previous Suit, which is the subject productof the Case of 2020.

As such, it is presumed that Defendant's Product was released

after Defendant's Product in Previous Suit.

However, it is not clear if a significant

change was made to the specification of the Defendant's Product in Previous Suit.

In

particular, the app which is considered to be problematic is the same in the two cases(AQUOS Home in both cases), and while the versions may be different, there does notseem to have been any significant change in specification, and the operation at issue(the aforementioned (2) B and (3) B) is the same or at least substantively the same.
The point in dispute in the Case of 2020 and the present case is whether there is
the Operation Menu Information in the app called "AQUOS Home" (App in Previous
Suit or Home App), which is installed in the subject product (Defendant's Product inPrevious Suit or Defendant's Product), so that the point in dispute is the sam e or atleast substantively the same, and furthermore, Appellants' claims on the point in
dispute are substantively the same as well.
In that case, it must be said that Appellant's claims in the present case are
merely to drag up, based on the reason that the subject product does not have
Operation Menu Information, the claims made by Appellant in the Case of 2020 inwhich the determination to the effect that the Appellant's demand made against
Appellees for compensation on the ground of tort of infringement of Patent Right has
no grounds, became final and binding.

It is presumed that when Appellant filed the

Appeal, Appellant was fully aware that the structure of Defendant's Product in
8

Previous Suit (the operation of App in Previous Suit), which provides a ground for thedetermination, in the Case of 2020, that Operation Menu Information does not exist,
and the structure of Defendant's Product (Operation of Home App) is substantively
the same, and thus Defendant's Product does not infringe on Patent Right for the same
reason as the one applicable to Defendant's Product in Previous Suit.

Accordingly, it

must be said that examining Appellant's claims in the present case will significantly
damage the reasonable expectations of Appellees for dispute resolution, which isbrought about with the judgment for the Case of 2020 becoming final and binding,and that it goes against the justice of a legal action.
(5)

Determination on Appellant's claims
In this respect, Appellant argues that new determinations are requi red in viewthat Defendant's Product in Previous Suit, which is the subject product of the Case of2020, and Defendant's Product have the difference of the former having the Structure[a1] and the latter having the Structures [a1], [a1'], and [a1"], and th at the Structures[a3], [a3'], and [a3"] as well as [p1] to [p3] have been added.
However, the Structures [a1], [a1'], and [a1"] as well as [p1] to [p3] of
Defendant's Product as claimed by Appellant are not related to Partially-Shown Image,and the Structures [a3], [a3'], and [a3"] are merely the result of more specifically
identifying the domain (coordinates) on the screen of Partially-Shown Image insteadof something that changes the operation of the App in Previous Suit as describedabove in (2) B.

As such, it must be said that none of the structures claimed byAppellant is one which, upon considering whether the Partially-Shown Image falls
under the Operation Menu Information of Constituent Features [B], [E], [F], and [G],affects the determination on the matter.
In addition, there is no evidence to sufficiently acknowledge that the difference
in structure, as claimed by the above Appellant, is substantively the difference
between the App in Previous Suit in Defendant's Product in Previous Suit, and t he
Home App in Defendant's Product.

Furthermore, even if it is acknowledged that the

App in Previous Suit in Defendant's Product in Previous Suit and the Home App in
Defendant's Product have difference with regard to said structure, it cannot be said
that the difference is one which affects the determination as to the presence ofOperation Menu Information in the Home App of Defendant's Product.

Also, thestructure which Appellant added in the court of second instance is not something that
affects the aforementioned determination.
As such, the above claims by Appellant cannot be accepted.
(6)

Summary9

Accordingly, it must be said that Appellant's demand for compensation on the
ground of tort of infringement of the Patent Right in the present case and Appe llant's
claims relating thereto are merely to drag up the dispute that was handled in the Caseof 2020, and to examine Appellant's claims by involving the parties of Appellant andAppellees, who were parties to said case, violates the principle of good fai th in a legal
action, and shall not be permitted.
2. Conclusion
As described above, the court determines that Appellant's Appeal is entirely
unlawful and shall be dismissed, whereas the judgment in prior instance, which
determined Appellant's claims to be lawful and rendered the judgment on the merits,
is unreasonable and shall be overruled.

The court dismisses the claims made in thepresent case entirely and renders a judgment as per the main text.
Intellectual Property High Court, Second Division
Presiding Judge: HONDA Tomonari
Judge:

ASAI Ken

Judge:KATSUMATA Kumiko

10(Attachment)
Structure of Defendant's Product, etc. pertaining to Appellant's claims, etc.
(1)

Structure [a1] of hardware of SHV39 (one of subject products in theCase of 2020)
A computer program in a smartphone, being equipped with memory means
such as 4 GB RAM and 64 GB ROM, processing means called "SDM845", output
means of a liquid crystal display, and touch panel input means, or being connected toa mouse or some other input means,(2)[a1] in the structure of Launcher 3 in SHV44

A computer program for Launcher 3 and Android OS in a smartphone, being
equipped with memory means such as 6 GB RAM and 128 GB RAM, a CPU called"Snapdragon855", an output device having a liquid crystal display in the size of 1440
horizontal pixels × 3120 vertical pixels, and a touch panel input device, or being
connected to a mouse or some other input means,(3)[a1'] in the structure of Launcher 3 in SHV45

A computer program for Launcher 3 and Android OS in a smartphone, being
equipped with memory means such as 4 GB RAM and 64 GB ROM, a CPU called"Snapdragon630", an output device having a liquid crystal display in the size of 1080
horizontal pixels × 2160 vertical pixels, and a touch panel input device, or being
connected to a mouse or some other input means,(4)[a1''] in the structure of Launcher 3 in SHV46

A computer program for Launcher 3 and Android OS in a smartphone, being
equipped with memory means such as 6 GB RAM and 64 GB ROM, a CPU called"Snapdragon636", an output device having a liquid crystal display in the size of 1080
horizontal pixels × 2220 vertical pixels, and a touch panel input device, or being
connected to a mouse or some other input means,(5)[a3] in the structure of Launcher 3 in SHV44

In the Structures [e], [e'], and [f], with the vertex in the upper left part of theliquid crystal display as the starting point, and with the X-axis set in a horizontal
direction (rightward being the appropriate direction) and the Y-axis set in a verticaldirection (downward being the appropriate direction), to indicate coordinates of
position on the liquid crystal display, display the image of the Partially-Shown Pageof the left page in the rectangular domain whose upper left position is (X: 0, Y: 355)
and shows the movement of 0 pixel in X-axis direction and the movement of 355
pixels in Y-axis direction, and whose lower right position is (X: 74, Y: 2324) in thesame coordinate system.

Likewise, display the image of the Partially-Shown Page of11the right page in the rectangular domain whose upper left position is (X: 1368, Y:355) and whose lower right position is (X: 1439, Y: 2324).
(6)[a3'] in the structure of Launcher 3 in SHV45

In the Structures [e], [e'], and [f], with the vertex in the upper left part of theliquid crystal display as the starting point, and with the X-axis set in a horizontal
direction (rightward being the appropriate direction) and the Y-axis set in a verticaldirection (downward being the appropriate direction), to indicate coordinates of
position on the liquid crystal display, display the image of the Partially-Shown Pageof the left page in the rectangular domain whose upper left position is (X: 0, Y: 231),
which shows the movement of 0 pixel in X-axis direction and the movement of 231
pixels in Y-axis direction, and whose lower right position is (X: 54, Y: 1587) in thesame coordinate system.

Likewise, display the image of the Partially-Shown Page ofthe right page in the rectangular domain whose upper left position is (X: 1025, Y:
231) and whose lower right position is (X: 1079, Y: 1587).
(7)[a3"] in the structure of Launcher 3 in SHV46

In the Structures [e], [e'], and [f], display the image of the Partially-Shown
Page of the left page in the rectangular domain whose upper left position is (X: 0, Y:
231) (with the vertex in the upper left part of the liquid crystal display as the starting
point (in the case of SHV46, the size of 1080 horizontal pixels × 2220 vertical pixels),
and with the X-axis set in a horizontal direction (rightward being the appropriate
direction) and the Y-axis set in a vertical direction (downward being the appropriate
direction), to indicate coordinates of position on the liquid crystal display, to mean aposition indicating the movement of 0 pixel in X-axis direction and the movement of
231 pixels in Y-axis direction) and whose lower right position is (X: 54, Y: 1639),
and likewise, display the image of the Partially-Shown Page of the right page in therectangular domain whose upper left position is (X: 1025, Y: 231) and whose lower
right position is (X: 1079, Y: 1639).
(8)[p1] in the structures of "pointer's coordinates of position" and "cursor

image" in Defendant's ProductAndroid OS is able to display, in the upper left part on the screen, numerals for
coordinates of position of the pointer, which are input by the touch panel, mouse, etc.
Android OS displays each image of the mouse cursor, white circular figure, and blue
cross line to point to the pointer's coordinates of position.
(9)[p2] in the structure of "pointer's coordinates of position" and "cursor

image" in Defendant's ProductLauncher 3 obtains the pointer's coordinates of position by the computer
12

programs, "getX" and "getY", in MotionEvent class, and the icon image being
dragged is displayed in a manner that points to the pointer's coordinates of position.
(10)

Structure [p3] in Android OS and Launcher 3

In Android OS, when a person touches, with a finger, etc., a touch panel which
was not touched by a finger, etc., the "ABS_MT_POSITION_X"ABS_MT_POSITION_Y

x[0] data" and they[0] data" are received successively from the device

driver, and based on these data, the MotionEvent class, which includes"ACTION_DOWN" data, are transferred to Launcher 3 "AQUOS Home".

Later,

when the person makes a sliding motion without lifting the finger, etc. to receive
different "ABS_MT_POSITION_X

x[0] data" and the "ABS_MT_POSITION_X

x[0] data", the MotionEvent class, which includes "ACTION_MOVE" data, istransferred to Launcher 3 (AQUOS Home).
data" and the "ABS_MT_POSITION_Y

The "ABS_MT_POSITION_Yy[0]y[0] data" are coordinates of position

obtained by the computer programs, "getX" and "getY", in MotionEvent class for the
Structure[p2].

Furthermore,

when

data

are

received

in

the

order

of

"SYN_REPORT", "SYN_MT_REPORT", and "SYN_REPORT" in the case ofProtocol A in Exhibit Ko 9-1, and in the order of "ABS_MT_TRACKING_ID-1"and "SYN_REPORT" in the case of Protocol B, the MotionEvent class, which
includes "ACTION_UP data", is transferred to Launcher 3 (AQUOS Home).
(11)[e] in the structure of Launcher 3 in Defendant's Product

When "ACTION_MOVE data" are received via the above input device, the"page number" of the page image shown at the center of the screen, which is stored in
the above memory device from the time of such receipt, is identified, and the HomeApp Operation Information associated with the identified "page number" is identified,
and the Partially-Shown Page in the identified Home App Operation Information isread out from the above memory device and displayed on the above output device.
(12)[e'] in the structure of Android OS and Launcher 3

When the "ABS_MT_POSITON_Y

y[0] data" are received via the above

input device, the "page number" of the page image displayed at the center of thescreen, which is stored in the above memory device from the time of such receipt, isidentified, and the Home App Operation Information associated with the identified"page number" is identified, and the Partially-Shown Page in the identified Home App
Operation Information is read out from the above memory device and displayed on theabove output device,(13)[f] in the structure of Launcher 3 of Defendant's Product

When the "image of the Partially-Shown Page" displayed in the output device13

is identified by a pointer via the above input device, the "scroll command", which is
associated with the "image of the Partially-Shown Page" designated by the pointer, isread out from the above memory device and executed, and the execution is continued
until the "image of Partially-Shown Page" displayed on the output device is no longer
designated by the pointer,
The "page number" of the page image displayed at the center of the screen,
which is stored in the above memory device that has changed due to the execution of
the command, is identified, and the Home App Operation Information associated with
the identified "page number" is identified, and the above "image of the PartiallyShown Page" in the identified Home App Operation Information is read out from theabove memory device and displayed on the above output device.

14