国際知財司法シンポジウム
Judicial Symposium onIntellectual Property / Tokyo2020
知的財産高等裁判所
Intellectual Property High Court of Japan1

パネリスト The panelists
OTAKA Ichiro

Chief Judge, IP High Court

KUMAGAI Daisuke Judge, IP High Court

SAGARA Yuriko

Attorney at Law, Nakamura & Partners

Colin Birss

Justice, High Court of England andWales, Chancery Division(in charge of the Patents Court)

Klaus Bacher

Presiding Judge, Federal Court ofJustice (Bundesgerichtshof)

Paul T. Meiklejohn Partner, Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Moderators

SHIROYAMA Yasufumi Attorney at Law, Anderson Mori &TomotsuneTAKAHASHI Aya

Judge, IP High Court

2

均等論DOE

模擬事例について The Mock Case
結論Conclusion

日本
Japan

アメリカ
US

イギリス
UK

ドイツ
Germany

文言侵害
Literal infringement✘
否定
Denied✘否定
Denied✘否定
Denied✘否定
Denied

均等侵害
Doctrine of equivalents✔
肯定
Affirmed✔
肯定
Affirmed✔
肯定
Affirmed✔
肯定
Affirmed

訴訟の結果
Outcome of the case✔
勝訴
Plaintiff Wins✔
勝訴
Plaintiff Wins✔
勝訴
Plaintiff Wins✔
勝訴
Plaintiff Wins

3

均等論DOE

模擬事例 Mock Case
従来技術 Conventional Art【図３】FIG.3【図３】FIG.3

接着剤
Adhesive Material課題：
金属製外殻部材に用いられる金属材料によっては，接着剤のみでＦＲＰ製外殻部材を金属製外殻部材に接合すると十分な接合強度が得られず，ゴルフクラブヘッドとしての耐久性を確保することが困難であった。（【０００３】）
目的：
中空ゴルフクラブヘッドにおいて，金属製外殻部材に用いられる金属材料によらず，金属製外殻部材とＦＲＰ製外殻部材との接合強度を高めることを可能にする。（【０００４】）

Problem:

Depending on the metallic material used for the metallic
outer shell member, there was difficulty in achieving
sufficient bonding strength, thus it was not possible toensure durability as a golf club head, when only adhesivematerial alone was used to bond the FRP outer shellmember to the metallic outer shell member. (See [0003])
Objective:
To provide a hollow golf club head capable of enhancing
the bonding strength of a metallic outer shell member andan FRP outer shell member, regardless of the kind of themetallic material used in the metallic outer shell member.
(See [0004])

4

均等論DOE

模擬事例 Mock Case
特許請求の範囲 Ｃｌａｉｍ

A 中空構造を有し，金属製外殻部材と繊維強化プラスチック（ＦＲＰ）製外殻部材をそれぞれの接合部で互いに結合することによって形成されるヘッド本体を有する中空ゴルフクラブヘッドであって,B複数の貫通穴が前記金属製外殻部材の接合部に設けられ，C前記複数の貫通穴を通されて前記金属製外殻部材の内面と外面を交互に通り，その形状が維持されたＦＲＰ製糸部材を，接着剤と共に，前記金属製外殻部材と前記ＦＲＰ製外殻部材との間に介在させることによって，D 前記金属製外殻部材の接合部が，前記ＦＲＰ製外殻部材の接合部に接着されており，E

前記ＦＲＰ製外殻部材及び前記ＦＲＰ製糸部材のマトリックスは，エポキシ樹脂を含有するFことを特徴とする中空ゴルフクラブヘッド。

F A hollow golf club head, comprisingA a head body having a hollow structure andformed by coupling together a metallic outershell member and a fiber reinforced plastic (FRP)
outer shell member at their respective bondingportions, wherein;
B a plurality of through-holes are provided in thebonding portion of the metallic outer shellmember;D the bonding portion of the metallic outer shellmember is bonded to the bonding portion of theFRP outer shell member
C by interposing an FRP thread member along withadhesive material between the metallic outershell member and the FRP outer shell member,
the FRP thread member maintaining a shape of
passing through the plurality of the throughholes and running alternately on inner and outersurfaces of the metallic outer shell member; andE each matrix of the FRP outer shell member andthe FRP thread member contains epoxy resin.
5均等論DOE

模擬事例 Mock Case
被告製品 Defendant's Product

明細書の実施例 Embodiment in the Specification【図２】FIG.2

被告製品 Defendant’s Product6

均等論DOE模擬事例 Mock Case
特許請求の範囲 Ｃｌａｉｍ

A 中空構造を有し，金属製外殻部材と繊維強化プラスチック（ＦＲＰ）製外殻部材をそれぞれの接合部で互いに結合することによって形成されるヘッド本体を有する中空ゴルフクラブヘッドであって,B複数の貫通穴が前記金属製外殻部材の接合部に設けられ，C前記複数の貫通穴を通されて前記金属製外殻部材の内面と外面を交互に通り，その形状が維持されたＦＲＰ製糸部材を，接着剤と共に，前記金属製外殻部材と前記ＦＲＰ製外殻部材との間に介在させることによって，D 前記金属製外殻部材の接合部が，前記ＦＲＰ製外殻部材の接合部に接着されており，E

前記ＦＲＰ製外殻部材及び前記ＦＲＰ製糸部材のマトリックスは，エポキシ樹脂を含有するFことを特徴とする中空ゴルフクラブヘッド。

F A hollow golf club head, comprisingA a head body having a hollow structure andformed by coupling together a metallic outershell member and a fiber reinforced plastic (FRP)
outer shell member at their respective bonding
portions, wherein;
B a plurality of through-holes are provided in thebonding portion of the metallic outer shellmember;
D the bonding portion of the metallic outer shellmember is bonded to the bonding portion of theFRP outer shell member
C by interposing an FRP thread member along withadhesive material between the metallic outershell member and the FRP outer shell member,
the FRP thread member maintaining a shape ofpassing through the plurality of the throughholes and running alternately on inner and outersurfaces of the metallic outer shell member; andE each matrix of the FRP outer shell member andthe FRP thread member contains epoxy resin.
7

均等論DOE

模擬事例 Mock Case
被告製品 Defendant's Product

明細書の実施例 Embodiment in the Specification【図２】FIG.2

被告製品 Defendant’s Product8

均等論DOE

日本 JAPAN

均等の５要件 5 Requirements of DOE
第１要件 本質的部分

Requirement #1
Replacement not being an essential part

第２要件 置換可能性
第３要件 置換容易性

Requirement #2
The purpose of the invention achieved, anidentical function and effect obtained
Requirement #3

Would be easily come up with by a PSA at thetime of the production of the accused product

第４要件 公知技術の除外

Requirement #4

第５要件 意識的除外

Not identical to a prior art nor easily
conceived of by a PSA at the time of the patentapplication
Requirement #5
Not excluded intentionally from the scope ofthe claim in the patent application process

9均等論DOE

ドイツ Germany

均等の要件 Requirements of DOE
１ 同一の効果

1 Same effect

２ 自明性

2 Obviousness

３ 技術的思想に基づく解決手段の同等性

3 Orientation to the claim
Are the considerations to be madeby the skilled person in order toarrive at the deviating means stilloriented to the essential meaning of
the technical teaching protected by
the patent claim, so that thedeviating means can be recognized as
an equally valid way of achieving thetechnical effect?

当業者が変更手段を想到する際の考慮が，特許クレームが保護する技術的思想の実質的意味をなお志向したもので，それゆえに，当該変更手段が技術的効果の達成のための同等に有効な方法であると認識できるかどうか。

10

均等論DOE

模擬事例 Mock Case
明細書の開示 Specification

明細書の記載Specification【００１５】[0015]Depending on the size, shape or otherfactors of the bonding portion 11a of themetallic outer shell member 11 and thebonding portion 21a of the FRP outer shellmember 21, a plurality of thread members
22 may be arranged on the metallic outershell member 11 for bonding so as to further
enhance the bonding strength of themetallic outer shell member 11 and the FRP
outer shell member 21.

なお，金属製外殻部材１１の接合部１１ａ及びＦＲＰ製外殻部材２１の接合部２１ａの大きさ，形状等に応じて，金属製外殻部材１１とＦＲＰ製外殻部材２１の接合強度をより高めるために，金属製外殻部材１１に複数本の糸部材２２を配して接着させてもよい。

被告の主張「複数本の糸部材を配して接着」する構成を認識しながら，敢えて，「前記複数の貫通穴を通されて前記金属製外殻部材の内面と外面を交互に通」る構成に限定

The argument of the defendantThe applicant limits the structure to the structureof “having a thread member pass through theplurality of the through-holes and run alternately
on inner and outer surfaces of the metallic outershell member”, while recognizing the structurethat “a plurality of thread members may bearranged for bonding”

11

均等論DOE

イギリス United Kingdom
均等の要件 Requirements of DOE

Actavis質問

第１質問 （はい）
実質的に同じ結果を，実質的に同じ方法で達成するか。

第２質問 （はい）
優先日の当業者における自明性

Actavis Questions
1st Question"yes"

Substantially the same result in
substantially the same way

2nd Question"yes"

Obviousness to the PSA at the prioritydate

第３質問 （いいえ）

3rd Question"no"

特許権者がクレームの文理的な意味に厳格に従うことを発明の必須な要件とする意図であったと結論付けるか。

Would such a reader have concluded thatthe patentee intended strict compliancewith the literal meaning of the relevantclaim(s) was an essential requirement of theinvention?
12均等論DOE

アメリカ United States
均等の要件 Requirements of DOE

対象製品等が特許発明の各クレームと同一又は均等な要素を含むかを，次のようなテストを用いて検討する。

Ａ．ＦＷＲテスト
機能・方法・結果の同一性
Ｂ．非本質的差異のテスト

Essential inquiry:
Does the accused product orprocess contain elements
identical or equivalent to eachclaimed element of the patented
invention?
A. Function, way, result test
B. Insubstantial differences test
C. Known Interchangeability

差異部分が非本質的か
Ｃ．置換容易性13

均等論DOE

アメリカ United States
抗弁等 Defenses or Bars

先行技術の抗弁
公衆への提供
出願経過禁反言Prior Art Defense
Dedication to the Public
Prosecution History Estoppel
Claim Vitiation Doctrine

Vitiation（無効化）の法理

14

均等論DOE

模擬事例 Mock Case
出願経過 Prosecution History

拒絶理由通知：明確性要件違反

Reason for refusal: Lack of clarity

補正Amendment

前記複数の貫通穴を通されて前記金属製外殻部材の内面と外面を交互に通り，その形状が維持されたＦＲＰ製
糸部材... an FRP thread member maintaining ashape of passing through the pluralityof the through-holes and running
alternately on inner and outer surfacesof the metallic outer shell member; and被告の主張

The argument of the defendant

The structure of “having a thread「複数の貫通穴を通され」る態様のうち、
member pass through the plurality of「金属製外殻部材の内面と外面を交互
the through-holes” is limited to theに通」る構成に限定
structure of “running alternately on
inner and outer surfaces of the metallic
outer shell member”
15

均等論DOE

模擬事例 Mock Case
明細書の開示 Specification

明細書の記載Specification【００１５】[0015]Depending on the size, shape or otherfactors of the bonding portion 11a of themetallic outer shell member 11 and thebonding portion 21a of the FRP outer shellmember 21, a plurality of thread members
22 may be arranged on the metallic outershell member 11 for bonding so as to further
enhance the bonding strength of themetallic outer shell member 11 and the FRP
outer shell member 21.

なお，金属製外殻部材１１の接合部１１ａ及びＦＲＰ製外殻部材２１の接合部２１ａの大きさ，形状等に応じて，金属製外殻部材１１とＦＲＰ製外殻部材２１の接合強度をより高めるために，金属製外殻部材１１に複数本の糸部材２２を配して接着させてもよい。

被告の主張「複数本の糸部材を配して接着」する構成を認識しながら，敢えて，「前記複数の貫通穴を通されて前記金属製外殻部材の内面と外面を交互に通」る構成に限定

The argument of the defendant

The applicant limits the structure to the structureof “having a thread member pass through theplurality of the through-holes and run alternately
on inner and outer surfaces of the metallic outershell member”, while recognizing the structurethat “a plurality of thread members may bearranged for bonding”

16

均等論DOE

模擬事例 Mock Case
被告製品 Defendant's Product

明細書の実施例 Embodiment in the Specification【図２】FIG.2

被告製品 Defendant’s Product17

均等論DOE

仮想事例 Hypothetical Case
出願経過 Prosecution History

拒絶理由：

明確性要件違反→新規性欠如
補正：
被告製品の構成を除外

Q 新規性ないし進歩性欠如を理由とする拒絶理由通知に対して，被告製品を除外する補正がされたとしたら，被告による侵害を認める結論になるか？

Reason for refusal:

Lack of clarity→Lack of novelty
Amendment:
Excludes Defendant’s ProductQ. If the amendment excluded
Defendant’s Product inaccordance with the officer’s
finding that the original claim
lacks novelty, would you conclude
that the Defendant’s Productinfringes the patent?
18

均等論DOE

仮想事例 Hypothetical Case
明細書の開示 Specification

被告製品 Defendant’s Product

Q 模擬事例において，明細書に次の図面のような構成が開示されている場合，被告による侵害を認める結論になるか？

Q. If the specification in the Mock
Case includes an embodimentdrawn below, would you conclude
that the Defendant’s Productinfringes the patent?

19

均等論DOE

仮想事例 Hypothetical Case
「同一の」作用効果 “Same” effect or result

Q 模擬事例において，
１ 被告製品における接合強度が，本件発明における接合強度より相当に低い場合
２ 被告製品における接合強度が，本件発明における接合強度よりも低いものの，本件発明の従来技術よりも相当に高い場合

Q. How would you conclude
1 if the bonding strength of
the Defendant’s Product ismuch weaker than that of theInvention
2 if the bonding strength of
the Defendant’s Product isweaker than that of theInvention, but much stronger
than the bonding strength ofa golf club described in
Background Art([0003])
20