1. When applying the support requirement provision of sec. 36(6)(i) Patent Act, it is sufficient to decide whether the scope of the claim exceeds the scope of the description. It is unallowable to interpret and decide this provision identical to the requirement of a sufficient enabling disclosure under sec. 36(4)(i).
2. It is not appropriate to hold that a second medical use claim does not fulfil the requirement of sec. 36(6)(i) unless the claimed use is supported by pharmacological data or equivalent.
The article discusses this Japanese court decision in great detail and compares the legal situation in Japan with the one before the European Patent Office and the United States Patent & Trademark Office.