Intellectual Property Information

Court Decision pronounced on July 18, 2000.
Its original issued on the same day.

Court Secretary

Case No. Heisei 11 (Wa) 1346, Case of Claim for Damages

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff
Name: Asse Corporation
Address: No. 1-4, Shinjuku 4-chome

Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo

Representative Director:

Sukeichi KOBAYASHI

Attorney-at-law representing the above Plaintiff in the suit:

Takekazu IKEHARA

Patent attorney assisting the above-identified attorney-at-
law: Keiki TANABE

Defendant
Name: Microsoft K.K.
Address: Sasazuka NA Bldg.

No. 50-1 Sasazuka 1-chome

Shibuya-ku, Tokyo

Representative Director: Shinichi ATA
Attorneys-at-law representing the above Defendant in the suit:

Hidetoshi MASUNAGA

Tomomi IKEDA

Patent attorneys assisting the above-identified attorneys-
at-law:

Yoshikazu TANI

Masashi SHINKAI

Takuya KOHJIMA

Masahiro NANJO

Main Sentence

1. Any of the Plaintiff's demands shall be dismissed.
2. Costs involved in this suit shall be borne by the
Plaintiff.

Facts and Reasons

I. The Plaintiff's Demands

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff money in
the amount of 329,315,067 yen as well as money in payment of
interests at the yearly interest of 5 % during a period starting
from January 22, 1999 to a date when the payment will be
completed.

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff money in
the amount of 75,000,000 yen per one year with respect to each
of the articles described in the attached Lists 1 and 2, as well
as money in the amount of 100,000,000 yen per one year with
respect to the article described in the attached List 3 during
a period starting from January 23, 1999 to each termination of
manufacture and sale of a respective one of the Accused Devices
included in the accused product, Microsoft Office, and
described in the Lists 1 to 3 attached hereto.

II. Summary of this Case

In this case, based upon the following First to Third
Patent Rights possessed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed
a claim for damages from the Defendant, alleging that each of
the Accused Devices manufactured and sold by the Defendant
infringes the First to Third Patent Rights.

1. No contestable facts, etc.

The Plaintiff possesses the patent rights identified
below.

(1) The arch-shaped character arrangement patent
(hereinafter referred to as "the First Patent Right".)

Patent Number: JP 2613766
Title of the Invention: Block Copy Design

Apparatus

Filing Date: December 30, 1986
Laid-open: July 12, 1988
Registration Date: February 27, 1997

(2) Claim 1 in the scope of claim for a patent in the specification for the above patent right is identified as shown below (hereinafter referred to as "the First Patent Invention"). "A block copy design apparatus comprising: means for inputting data on respective characters in a character string to be drawn; means for, when it is specified that said character string is to be arranged in an arch-shaped arrangement, inputting data for specifying a position of a first point which represents a starting point of drawing a first character in said character string, a position of a second point which represents a terminating point of drawing a last character in said character string, and a position of a third point which represents a height of the arch-shaped arrangement to be drawn; means for calculating a character arrangement locus which represents a portion of a circle or an ellipse which runs from said first point to said second point via said third point; means for allocating the respective characters in the character string onto said character arrangement locus and determining sizes and rotational angles of the respective characters thus allocated; means for judging whether or not a space is changed based upon a relationship between said one character and the next character as allocated in said character string; and means for moving said next character by a predetermined amount when it is judged that the change of the space is needed." (3) The constituent elements of the above invention are paraphrased as follows (hereinafter, each of the paraphrased constituent elements is referred to as "the constituent element á@, for example", in accordance with numerals previously used.) áF A block copy design apparatus comprising: á@ means for inputting data on respective characters in a character string to be drawn; áA means for, when it is specified that said character string is to be arranged in an arch-shaped arrangement, inputting data for specifying a position of a first point which represents a starting point of drawing a first character in said character string, a position of a second point which represents a terminating point of drawing a last character in said character string, and a position of a third point which represents a height of the arch-shaped arrangement to be drawn; áB means for calculating a character arrangement locus which represents a portion of a circle or an ellipse which runs from said first point to said second point via said third point; áC means for allocating the respective characters in the character string onto said character arrangement locus and determining sizes and rotational angles of the respective characters thus allocated; áD means for judging whether or not a space is changed based upon a relationship between said one character and the next character as allocated in said character string; and áE means for moving said next character by a predetermined amount when it is judged that the change of the space is needed. 2) (1) The multiple character pattern patent (hereinafter referred to as "the Second Patent Right".) Patent Number: JP 2627886 Title of the Invention: Block Copy Design Data Forming Method Filing Date: January 14, 1987 Laid-open: July 18, 1988 Registration Date: April 18, 1997 (2) Claim 1 in the scope of claim for a patent in the specification for the above patent right is identified as shown below (hereinafter referred to as "the Second Patent Invention"). "A block copy design data forming method comprising the steps of: specifying a position which is distant by a predetermined change width inwardly or outwardly from a first character pattern as reference, based upon first design data composed of character data representing positions of display points forming the first character pattern; determining a width ratio of a first character width representing a width of said first character pattern to a second character width obtained by subtracting or adding said change width from or to the first character width; multiplying the character data representing the positions of the display points forming said first character pattern by said width ratio to determine second design data composed of character data representing positions of display points of a second character pattern superimposed inside or outside of said first character pattern; determining second origin data representing an origin of said second character pattern based upon first origin data representing an origin of said first character pattern and change width data representing said change width; and drawing said second character pattern based upon said second origin data in superimposition on said first character pattern drawn based upon said first origin data, thereby forming a multiple character pattern composed of said first and second character patterns." (3) The constituent elements of the above invention are paraphrased as follows: (ff) A block copy design data forming method comprising the steps of: (aa) specifying a position which is distant by a predetermined change width inwardly or outwardly from a first character pattern as reference, based upon first design data composed of character data representing positions of display points forming the first character pattern; (bb) determining a width ratio of a first character width representing a width of said first character pattern to a second character width obtained by subtracting or adding said change width from or to the first character width; (cc) multiplying the character data representing the positions of the display points forming said first character pattern by said width ratio to determine second design data composed of character data representing positions of display points of a second character pattern superimposed inside or outside of said first character pattern; (dd) determining second origin data representing an origin of said second character pattern based upon first origin data representing an origin of said first character pattern and change width data representing said change width; and (ee) drawing said second character pattern based upon said second origin data in superimposition on said first character pattern drawn based upon said first origin data, thereby forming a multiple character pattern composed of said first and second character patterns. 3) (1) The last character erasure patent (hereinafter referred to as "the Third Patent Right".) Patent Number: JP 2799499 Title of the Invention: Block Copy Design Apparatus Filing Date: July 9, 1988 Laid-open: January 24, 1990 Registration Date: July 10, 1998 (2) Claim 1 in the scope of claim for a patent in the specification for the above patent right is identified as shown below (hereinafter referred to as "the Third Patent Invention 1"). "A block copy design apparatus comprising: character data creating means for, during creating of each character, registering character data consisting of character type data, character position data, and character style data in character register/memory means according to a creating sequence, and causing registered-character counting means to perform an additive counting operation, whereby the count content is held as data indicative of the number of valid registered characters from a first registered character to a last registered character; and character data erasing means for, during erasing of each character, causing the registered-character counting means to perform a subtractive counting operation, thereby excluding the character data on the last registered character from an effective registration range so that the character data on the last registered character is erased as a result of the exclusion." (3) The constituent elements of the above invention are paraphrased as follows: E A block copy design apparatus comprising: A character data creating means for, during creating of each character, registering character data consisting of character type data, character position data, and character style data in character register/memory means according to a creating sequence; and B causing registered-character counting means to perform an additive counting operation, whereby the count content is held as data indicative of the number of valid registered characters from a first registered character to a last registered character; and C character data erasing means for, during erasing of each character, causing the registered-character counting means to perform a subtractive counting operation, thereby excluding the character data on the last registered character from an effective registration range; D so that the character data on the last registered character is erased as a result of the exclusion. (4) Claim 2 in the scope of claim for a patent in the specification for the above patent right is identified as shown below (hereinafter referred to as "the Third Patent Invention 2"). "A block copy design apparatus comprising: character data creating means for, during creation of each character, registering character data consisting of character type data, character position data, and character style data in character register/memory means according to a creating sequence and causing registered-character counting means to perform an additive counting operation, whereby the count content is held as data indicative of the number of valid registered characters from a first registered character to a last registered character; representation clearing means for, during erasing of each character, clearing representation of the last registered character on a display screen of the displaying means; character data erasing means for, during erasing of each character, causing the registered-character counting means to perform a subtractive counting operation, thereby excluding the character data on the last registered character from an effective registration range so that the character data on the last registered character is erased as a result of the exclusion; and redisplaying means for displaying all the registered character data in the character register/memory means on the display screen of the displaying means." (5) The constituent elements of the above invention are paraphrased as follows: f A block copy design apparatus comprising: a character data creating means for, during creation of each character, registering character data consisting of character type data, character position data, and character style data in character register/memory means according to a creating sequence; and b causing registered-character counting means to perform an additive counting operation, whereby the count content is held as data indicative of the number of valid registered characters from a first registered character to a last registered character; c representation clearing means for, during erasing of each character, clearing representation of the last registered character on a display screen of the displaying means; d character data erasing means for, during erasing of each character, causing the registered-character counting means to perform a subtractive counting operation, thereby excluding the character data on the last registered character from an effective registration range so that the character data on the last registered character is erased as a result of the exclusion; and e redisplaying means for displaying all the registered character data in the character register/memory means on the display screen of the displaying means. 2. The Defendant conducts the business of manufacturing and selling the Accused Devices described in the attached List. II. Points at issue Points at issue are: Whether each of the Accused Devices is encompassed within the technical scope of the First Patent Invention to the Third Patent Inventions 1 and 2; and Whether the Defendant's act of manufacturing and selling the Accused Devices infringes each of the subject patent rights. 1. Whether the Accused Device 1 conforms to the constituent elements á@ to áF of the First Patent Invention. 2. Whether the Accused Devices 2-1 to 2-3 conform to the constituent elements (aa) to (ff) of the Second Patent Invention. 3. Whether the Accused Device 3 conforms to the constituent elements A to E of the Third Patent Invention 1. 4. Whether the Accused Device 3 conforms to the constituent elements a to f of the Third Patent Invention 2. 3. Arguments by the Parties Concerned 1. Arguments relating to the First Patent Invention to the Third Patent Inventions 1 and 2 1) Argument by the Plaintiff (1) Existence of Direct Infringement In the First Patent Invention and the Third Patent Inventions 1 and 2 as apparatus inventions, matters per se which express functions structurally are fixedly recorded on the recording medium as program data of the Accused Devices. Thus, each of the Accused Devices directly infringes the First Patent Right and the Third Patent Right which relate to apparatus inventions. Further, in the Second Patent Invention as a method invention, as to interrelationships between functions as specified in accordance with a procedure of steps in time sequence in the Accused Devices, matters relating to such interrelationships are fixedly recorded on the recording medium of each Accused Device in a manner such that the program for executing each of the functions can be read out in accordance with a sequence of reading-out commands. Therefore, each Accused Device is in a state of using the Second Patent Invention as a method invention. Thus, the Accused Devices directly infringe the Second Patent Right relating to a method invention. When a general-purpose personal computer is operating as a design tool, a primary element which is controlling data processing operation is an application program which is installed in a hard disk unit. The hardware resource and software resource which the general-purpose personal computer per se has are mere assisting elements for sequentially executing each program data of the application program. Thus, the fact that the Accused Devices each infringe each of the subject patent right remains unchanged. (2) Existence of Indirect Infringement Many applications programs are recorded on the recording medium having the Accused Devices recorded thereon. However, it is predetermined that one application program performs a predetermined data processing operation. Therefore, application programs of the Accused Device 1, the Accused Devices 2-1 to 2-3, and the Accused Device 3, among other application programs, execute only functions of the First Patent Invention, the Second Patent Invention, and the Third Patent Inventions 1 and 2, respectively. Thus, the Accused Devices 1 and 3 fall under Section 101, Item 1 of the Japanese Patent Law, and the Accused Device 2 falls under Section 101, Item 2 of the same Law. (3) Tort assisted by the Defendant The Defendant has litigation-unrelated firms sell Excel and Word which are portions of the Microsoft Office in a way such that Excel and Word are installed as preinstalled applications into computers manufactured and sold by the above firms, as identified in the list of preinstalled applications attached hereto. In a state in which the application software is installed in computers, it is evident that the subject patents each are infringed by each of the computers which become integral to the applications of the accused products. Further, Microsoft Office is manufactured and sold by the Defendant as the application software for business use. Any firms, etc. which purchase this software are regarded as using it upon installing it, and thus, infringing the subject patents. The Defendant is responsible for compensatory damages by reason of a joint tort on the ground that the Defendant's acts of manufacturing and selling Microsoft Office to the firms for the purpose of preinstallation as specified in the attached list, as well as the acts of manufacturing and selling the products of Microsoft Office for business use should be considered as assisting infringing the patent rights owned by the Plaintiff. (4) The Plaintiff's assertion as to the damages Even after each of the subject patent rights was registered, the Defendant has continued to manufacture and sell the Accused Devices under the circumstances in which one can know the fact that these devices infringe the subject patent inventions. A total amount of sales is 1,500,000,000 yen or more per one year for the First and Second Patents, respectively; and a total amount of sales is 2,000,000,000 yen or more per one year for the Third Patent. It is appropriate that the licensing rate of each of the subject patent inventions should be 5 % of sales of a respective one of the subject patent inventions. Therefore, the Defendant has an obligation to pay compensation for damages in the amount of 75,000,000 yen per one year for the First and Second Patent Rights, respectively; and compensation for damages in the amount of 100,000,000 yen per one year for the Third Patent Right. A total amount of sales is 1,500,000,000 yen or more per one year for the Accused Devices 1 and 2, respectively. It is appropriate that the licensing rate for each of the First and Second Patent Rights should be set at 5 % of the sales. Hence, the amount of money indicated at the paragraph 1 of I. "The Plaintiff's Demands" is a sum of the following damages: Damages which arose during the period from February 27, 1997, the registration date of the First Patent Right, to January 22, 1999, the date when the Statement of Complaint was submitted, with respect to the First Patent Right; and Damages which arose during the period from April 18, 1997, the registration date of the Second Patent Right, to January 22, 1999, the date when the Statement of Complaint was submitted, with respect to the Second Patent Right. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed a suit as described in "the Plaintiff's Demands" section. 2) The Defendant's assertion (1) The fundamental differences between the Accused Devices and the subject patent inventions: Word and WordArt as the accused products are software products for "document processing". Therefore, a computer, such as a personal computer having Word and WordArt incorporated therein is "an apparatus for document processing", but not "a block copy design apparatus". Further, a method implemented by "the apparatus for document processing" is "a document processing method", but not "a block copy design data forming method". The Accused Devices are not intended to be used in designing a pattern of a sports shirt or the like. Therefore, the Accused Devices do not infringe the subject patent rights. (2) Non-existence of Indirect Infringement In relation to the First Patent Invention and the Third Patent Inventions 1 and 2 as product inventions, the Accused Devices are not "articles to be used exclusively for the manufacture of the product" pursuant to Section 101, Item 1 of the Japanese Patent Law. In relation to the Second Patent Invention directed to a method invention, the Accused Devices are not "articles to be used exclusively for the working of such invention" pursuant to Section 101, Item 2 of the Japanese Patent Law. Consequently, the Accused Devices do not constitute indirect infringement of the subject patent inventions. The Accused Devices are "computer-readable recording media having programs recorded therein". "An article" pursuant to Section 101, Item 1 of the Japanese Patent Law is intended to be a tangible article. Hence, a part relating to a specific function in the program cannot be construed as "an article" which constitutes indirect infringement as asserted by the Plaintiff. Further, "an article" of Section 101, Item 1 of the Japanese Patent Law refers to "a piece of article" which is an actual subject of trade. Namely, the reason why "exclusively" is required is as follows: If "an article" having even use irrelevant to working of the patented invention could be a subject for injunction, then, effect of a patent right would be unduly broadened, which is not permitted. Therefore, "the article" in indirect infringement in which it is determined as to whether the article has other use or not, has to correspond with "the article" which is a subject for injunction. "The article" means "a piece of article" which is actually manufactured and sold by the Defendant, and which has become a subject of trade and is actually distributed. What is actually manufactured and sold by the Defendant, and has become a subject of trade and is actually distributed is "a recording medium". Thus, "the recording medium" should be construed as "an article" in applying the indirect infringement. With respect to a part relating to a specific function in the program recorded in "the recording medium" which the Defendant produces and sells, the Plaintiff regards the part as each of the Accused Devices, the Plaintiff asserts the applicability of indirect infringement. However, it is not a fact that the Defendant extracts the part relating to a specific function and produces and sells it, as asserted by the Plaintiff. Consequently, the Plaintiff's assertion per se is not right. (3) As to the Plaintiff's assertion The Plaintiff neither specifies the Accused Devices nor specifically compares the effects and advantageous results of the First to Third Patent Inventions 1 and 2 with those of the Accused Devices. (4) Hardware is not included in the accused products. The First Patent Invention and the Third Patent Inventions 1 and 2, which comprise at least hardware resources or function implementing means such as a keyboard, a microprocessor, a memory, and an output unit, as the constituent elements, relate to a block copy design "apparatus" as a mechanical apparatus. It is apparent that at least one "means for .. ing" in the claims includes a specific hardware resource. The accused product Microsoft Word 97 per se, which is software stored in the recording medium, does not comprise hardware resource corresponding to "means" in the First Patent Invention and the Third Patent Inventions 1 and 2. Therefore, the accused product does not conform to the constituent elements of the First Patent Invention and the Third Patent Inventions 1 and 2. 2. The First Patent Invention 1) The Plaintiff's assertion (1) The constituent element á@ In WordArt, while a window of "Editing of WordArt Text" is opened, characters are inputted in accordance with a message "Input Character Here" (Fig. 1). Then, the Accused Device 1 conforms to the constituent element á@ of the First Patent Invention. (2) The constituent element áA In a screen shot of WordArt Gallery of the Accused Device 1, an arch-shape is selected and character input is determined. Then, a character string is arch-shaped and surrounded with eight square points as shown in Fig. 2. A mouse is brought to a point d in the left center among the eight points, and the point d is moved to a desired position by dragging. Then, a first point as a starting point for drawing the character string can be determined. A dotted-line arch auxiliary line indicates that the character string was moved at this time. Next, the mouse is brought to a point e in the right center among the eight square points, and the point e is moved to a desired position by dragging. Then, a second point as a terminating point for drawing the character string can be determined. At this time, the dotted-line arch auxiliary line from the starting point of drawing to the terminating point of drawing is shown so that an operator can confirm a specified character string range. Upon execution of operation to decide input of the terminating point of drawing in this state, an arch-shaped character string is shown in the range between the starting point of drawing and the terminating point of drawing as shown in Fig. 3. Further, the mouse is brought to a point g in the central bottom side, and the point g is moved upwardly or downwardly by dragging. Then, a third point specifying a height of a curvature of the arch-shaped character string can be determined. A semi- elliptic arc in which the character string is to be arranged is displayed with a dotted-line arch auxiliary line. Upon execution of operation to specify the height, the character string is arranged on the dotted-line arch auxiliary line as shown with a yellow colored character string in Fig. 4. Such data processing function of the Accused Device 1 conforms to the constituent element áA of the First Patent Invention. (3) The constituent element áB When the third point specifying a height is determined, the semi-elliptic arc in which the character string is to be arranged is displayed with a dotted-line arch auxiliary line according to the Accused Device 1. The semi-elliptic arc is a character arrangement locus which runs from the first point as the starting point for drawing the character string to the second point as the terminating point for drawing, via the third point specifying the height. Such function of calculating the dotted-line arch auxiliary line of the Accused Device 1 conforms to the constituent element áB of the First Patent Invention. (4) The constituent element áC In a state in which the operation to specify a height has been executed and the character string is indicated with a yellow character string in Fig. 4, respective characters constituting the character string are sequentially allocated at positions on the character arrangement locus, and then, sizes and rotational angles of the respective characters are determined. In allocating characters on the locus of the elliptic arc, the sizes of the characters are determined by a length of the elliptic arc and the number of characters of the character string, thereby calculating allocating positions. Otherwise, the characters cannot be allocated on the elliptic arc shaped positions in the specified range. After the characters are allocated, the rotational angles of the characters matched with the elliptic arc are calculated based upon the locus of the elliptic arc and the character positions. In this manner, orientations of the respective characters can be changed more appropriately, in comparison with orientations of gray characters before changed. Such functions of allocating characters and determining sizes and rotational angles thereof in the Accused Device 1 conform to the constituent element áC of the First Patent Invention. (5) The constituent element áD In the Accused Device 1, while the window of "Editing of WordArt Text" is opened, a font for the character string to be used in inputting the character string can be selected. When the operator specifies "MSP Gothic", a distance between the characters can be automatically changed and indicated, depending upon what characters are neighboring characters (such character arrangement is generally called "Proportional Font"). On the other hand, when "MS Gothic" is specified, a distance between the characters is the same regardless of what characters neighbor each other. The Accused Device 1 has a function of judging whether or not there is need to change a character distance, depending upon a specified font. Such function conforms to the constituent element áD of the First Patent Invention. (6) The constituent element áE As set forth above, when judging that "MSP Gothic" has been specified, a distance between characters are changed, depending upon what characters are neighboring characters, and a position of a character immediately following a certain character is determined. Such function of moving a next following character in the Accused Device 1 conforms to the constituent element áE of the First Patent Invention. (7) The constituent element áF As has been discussed, the Accused Device 1 has a design data processing function which conforms to all of the constituent elements of the First Patent Invention. Therefore, the Defendant's "software product for document processing" contains a program which provides a general-purpose personal computer or its peripheral device with executing instructions for executing the same functions of "the block copy design apparatus" of the First Patent Invention. 2) The Defendant's assertion (1) The constituent elements áA and áB In the Accused Device 1, a character arrangement locus is not calculated by inputting "a first point representing a starting point", "a second point representing a terminating point", and "a third point representing a height" as specified in the constituent elements áA and áB of the First Patent Invention. When the user performs a predetermined operation, a character string which is arranged running through an elliptic arc determined in accordance with an initial setting value predetermined by a program, is automatically displayed on the computer screen. The user can freely change the locus of the initially set ellipse by moving eight size changing handles. The size changing handles have a function of inputting control points for calculating the locus of the ellipse. Further, the user can freely specify a central angle of the elliptic arc, which is initially set to 180 degrees, within range of 360 degrees, by moving an adjusting handle. The adjusting handle has a function of inputting the central angle of the elliptic arc. A CPU executes operation on calculation of the elliptic locus from the control points inputted by the size changing handles, and calculates the elliptic arc from the central angle inputted by the adjusting handle. As set forth above, the Accused Device 1 completely differs from the constitution of the First Patent Invention in which "the first point representing a starting point", "the second point representing a terminating point", and "the third point representing a height" are inputted, and the character arrangement locus is calculated by using the above three points. Consequently, the Accused Device 1 does not conform to the constituent elements áA and áB of the First Patent Invention. (3) The Constituent element áF The Plaintiff's First Patent Invention is directed to a block copy design apparatus. The accused product, Word 97, however is a software product for document processing, namely, "a computer-readable recording medium having a program recorded thereon". In general, a program for implementing an "apparatus" invention on a computer when in a state before being installed into the computer is not construed as constituting an apparatus having a specific function which is exhibited by implementing the program. Therefore, acts of manufacture, assignment, or the like of such recording medium do not mean working of the patented invention of such apparatus. 3. The Second Patent Invention 1) The Accused Device 2-1 (a solid-outline character pattern having a specified width) (1) The Plaintiff's assertion aa. The constituent element (aa) In a state in which the WordArt Gallery screen shot of the Accused Device 2-1 is opened, "outlined white-colored character" is selected. Then, the window of "Editing of WordArt Text" is opened. When a character "T" is inputted in accordance with a message "INPUT CHARACTER HERE", there appears a screen shot as shown in Fig. 5. In this state, input determination operation is executed, there appears a screen shot displaying a first character pattern, which is an outlined white-colored character T surrounded by eight square points, as shown in Fig. 6. "Solid Line" and "Width" are to be specified and inputted in Item of "Line" in a screen shot of "WordArt Format Setting". This specifying input is to execute data processing so as to draw a thick solid line on the outline of "the outlined white-colored character T". This means that a position is specified which is distant by a predetermined change width (a distance to the solid line edge) inwardly or outwardly of a line represented by the first character pattern. Such setting function of "Line" Item in the Accused Device 2-1 conforms to the constituent element (aa) of the Second Patent Invention. bb. The constituent element (bb) In the Accused Device 2-1, in order for the displayed first character pattern to have a specified "width", a character width and a width ratio are obtained from the change width corresponding to "the width", so that ratio data for creating a second character pattern is calculated. It is necessary that a ratio to be used to display two character patterns of different sizes in superimposition is calculated based upon a change width so that the first character pattern composed with a line has a width. Unless this ratio is calculated, the line cannot have a thickness. Such processing function of the Accused Device 2-1 conforms to the constituent element (bb) of the Second Patent Invention. cc. The constituent element (cc) In the Accused Device 2-1, character data on two second character patterns representing the thick outline are calculated inwardly and outwardly of the first character pattern, based upon the width ratio obtained above. It is necessary that first character data is multiplied by a width ratio in order to obtain two characters having different sizes from character data on the first character pattern in such manner. Unless this calculation is performed, the line cannot have a thickness. Such processing function of the Accused Device 2-1 conforms to the constituent element (cc) of the Second Patent Invention. dd. The constituent element (dd) In the Accused Device 2-1, two second origins are calculated in order to draw two of the second character patterns obtained above. It is necessary that positions of two second origins of two second character patterns are properly determined in order to enable to draw two second character patterns in superimposition on a first character pattern in a well-balanced manner. Such processing function conforms to the constituent element (dd) of the Second Patent Invention. ee. The constituent element (ee) As to "Line" data set in the screen shot of "WordArt Format Setting", determination operation is executed, so that a character pattern in thick line of Fig. 7 can be obtained (a character pattern in which a space between the inner second character pattern and the outer second character pattern is filled with black.) Such processing function of the Accused Device 2-1 conforms to the constituent element (ee) of the Second Patent Invention. ff. The constituent element (ff) As set forth above, the Accused Device 2-1 has functions of processing design data which conform to all of the constituent elements of the Second Patent Invention. Consequently, the Defendant's "software product for document processing" includes at least a program providing a general-purpose personal computer or its peripheral devices with execution instructions to execute the same function as that of "the block copy design forming method" of the Second Patent Invention. (2) The Defendant's assertion aa. The constituent elements (aa) to (ff) Suppose that a character were to be created such that after "a first character pattern" is created, "a second character pattern" (corresponding to outlines of the character) is drawn on both the inside and outside of the character, and thereafter, space inside of the outlines of the character is filled, as is asserted by the Plaintiff. Then, the inner outline and the outer outline of the character should be the same in shape. In the Accused Device 2-2, an outline is drawn with a specific width in a software form by tracing or plotting display points specified in accordance with design data by using a pen having a round-shaped writing tip with a specific diameter (this method is publicly known.) Consequently, when a corner of the outline is observed, it is seen that the outer line of the corner is rounded, whereas the inner line of the corner is not rounded, and thus both shapes are evidently different from each other (Fig. 8). In the Accused Device 2-2, a width ratio is not obtained and the original pattern data is not multiplied by the width ratio. The character patterns are drawn in a different manner from the Second Patent Invention. Therefore, the Accused Device 2-2 does not conform to any of the constituent elements (aa) to (ee). bb. The constituent element (ff) The Plaintiff's Second Patent Invention is an invention directed to a block copy design data forming method, whereas the accused product Word 97 is a software product for document processing, i.e., "a computer-readable recording medium having a program recorded therein". In general, a program for implementing a method invention on a computer when in a state before being installed into the computer is not construed as using the method invention. Therefore, acts of manufacture, assignment, or the like of such recording medium per se do not mean working of the patented invention directed to the method. Thus, the Accused Device 2-1 does not infringe the Second Patent Right. 2) The Accused Device 2-2 (a dotted-outlined character pattern) (1) The Plaintiff's assertion aa. The constituent element (aa) In the Accused Device 2-2, "Outlined White Character" is selected in a state that a screen shot of WordArt Gallery is opened. Then, a window of "Editing of WordArt Text" is opened. A character "T" is inputted in accordance with a message "INPUT CHARACTER HERE", so that a screen shot displaying a first character pattern, as an outlined white character "T" surrounded with eight square points is obtained as shown in Fig. 9. In "Filling" Item, the color is set to "Red", and thereafter, in "Line" Item, "Color" is set to "No Line", so that a first character pattern which is a non-outlined red character is obtained as shown in Fig. 10. Next, in a screen shot of "WordArt Format Setting", a line color is set to "Black" in "No Line" Item, then, "Solid/Dotted" is set to "Dotted (square)", and thereafter, operation to determine thus set data is executed. At this time, a second character pattern composed of dotted-line "T" is superimposed on the red character "T" as the first character pattern so that a dotted outlined character can be drawn as a whole, as shown in Fig. 11. As is clear from Fig. 11, in the Accused Device 2-2, the second character pattern in dotted line signifies specifying a position which is distant by a change width "0" inwardly of the line represented by the first character pattern. Such data processing function conforms to the constituent element (aa) of the Second Patent Invention. bb. The constituent element (bb) In the Accused Device 2-2, a width ratio "1" is calculated because a change width is "0". Such processing function of the Accused Device 2-2 conforms to the constituent element (bb) of the Second Patent Invention. cc. The constituent element (cc) In the Accused Device 2-2, character data on the second character pattern is calculated inwardly of the first character pattern, based upon the above obtained width ratio "1". Such processing function of the Accused Device 2-2 conforms to the constituent element (cc) of the Second Patent Invention. dd. The constituent element (dd) In the Accused Device 2-2, a second origin for drawing the above obtained second character pattern is calculated. Here, the width ratio is "1". Thus, the second origin is the same as the first origin. Such processing function of the Accused Device 2-2 conforms to the constituent element (dd) of the Second Patent Invention. ee. The constituent element (ee) In the Accused Device 2-2, the dotted-line second character pattern is drawn so as to be superimposed on the outline of the red colored first character pattern. Such processing function of the Accused Device 2-2 conforms to the constituent element (ee) of the Second Patent Invention. ff. The constituent element (ff) The same as set forth as to the Accused Device 2-1 in the above 3 1) (1) ff applies here. (2) The Defendant's assertion aa. The constituent elements (bb) and (cc) The Plaintiff asserts that "the non-outlined red-colored character" corresponds to the first character pattern and "the black dotted-outline" corresponds to the second character pattern. However, as the Plaintiff admits that the width ratios of both are 1, original design data is the same as new design data obtained by multiplying the original design data by the width ratio 1. If the design data on "the non-outlined red-colored character" is the same as the design data on "the black dotted outline", the design data on "the non-outlined red-colored character" as it is should be used as the design data on "the black dotted outline". There is no need to multiply the design data on "the non-outlined red-colored character" by the width ratio 1 to obtain the design data on "the black dotted outline". Moreover, there is no need to obtain the width ratio 1. The Accused Device 2-2 carries out neither a process for obtaining such width ratio nor a process for multiplying the design data by the width ratio. Therefore, the Accused Device 2-2 fails to carry out processes corresponding to the constituent elements (bb) and (cc) of the Second Patent Invention. 3) The Accused Device 2-3 (a shaded character pattern) (1) The Plaintiff's assertion aa. The constituent element (aa) In the Accused Device 2-3, in a state in which a screen shot of WordArt Gallery is opened, "outlined white-colored character" is selected so that a window of "Editing of WordArt Text" is opened. A character "T" is inputted in accordance with a message "INPUT CHARACTER HERE", and such input is determined, thereby obtaining an outlined white-colored character as shown in Fig. 12. Subsequently, "Display" in an initial screen shot is selected, "Toolbar", "Figure Drawings", and "Shade Specifying" icons are sequentially selected, so that one shade style among a plurality of shade styles can be selected in order to put a shade to the first character pattern, as shown in Fig. 13. Such "shade style" setting function of the Accused Device 2-3 is capable of specifying a position deviated from the first character pattern. Therefore, the above function of the Accused Device 2-3 conforms to the constituent element (aa) of the Second Patent Invention. bb. The constituent element (bb) In the Accused Device 2-3, "shade style" is specified so that a width ratio data to a width of the first character is calculated in order to obtain a character pattern having a different size. In general, it is necessary that a ratio relative to first character data is calculated so that a size of the character pattern can be set to a variety of sizes. Unless this calculation is performed, the character cannot have a variety of sizes. Such processing function of the Accused Device 2-3 conforms to the constituent element (bb) of the Second Patent Invention. cc. The constituent element (cc) In the Accused Device 2-3, display point data is multiplied by the width ratio, based upon the width ratio obtained above, thereby calculating character data on a second character pattern. The first character data is multiplied by the width ratio in such manner so that two characters having different sizes are obtained from the character data on the first character pattern. Unless this multiplication is performed, the second character pattern having a different size cannot be created. Such processing function of the Accused Device 2-3 conforms to the constituent element (cc) of the Second Patent Invention. dd. The constituent element (dd) In the Accused Device 2-3, a second origin is calculated in order to draw the above obtained second character pattern. When the second character pattern is drawn by using the origin data of the first character pattern, a resulting character pattern is nothing more than overlapping character patterns. In view of this, the second origin of the second character is moved relative to the first origin of the first character to draw the second character pattern, thereby permitting to form a well-balanced, shaded multiple character pattern. For this end, there is need to obtain a position of the second origin of the second character pattern properly. Such processing function of the Accused Device 2-3 conforms to the constituent element (dd) of the Second Patent Invention. ee. The constituent element (ee) Upon selecting "the shade specifying" icon, the second character pattern is drawn on a position deviating from the first character pattern as shown in Fig. 14, so that a shaded multiple character pattern such that the second character pattern becomes shade of the first character pattern can be obtained. Such processing function of the Accused Device 2-3 conforms to the constituent element (ee) of the Second Patent Invention. ff. The constituent element (ff) The same as set forth as to the Accused Device 2-1 in the 3 1)(1) ff applies here. (2) The Defendant's assertion aa. The constituent element (cc) The constituent element (cc) specifies "a second character pattern superimposed inside or outside of said first character pattern". However, it is impossible to say definitely that "the shaded character" of the Accused Device 2-3 is superimposed on inside or outside of "the red character", because "the shaded character" includes a portion which is thought to be partially superimposed inwardly of the character as well as a portion which is thought to be partially superimposed outwardly of the character. Therefore, the Accused Device 2-3 fails to carry out a process for "determining second design data composed of character data representing positions of display points of a second character pattern superimposed inside or outside of said first character pattern", and thus the Accused Device 2-3 does not carry out the process corresponding to the constituent element (cc) of the Second Patent Invention. 4. The Third Patent Invention 1 1) The Plaintiff's assertion (1) The constituent element A In the Accused Device 3, the following processing operations are executed: á@ during creation of each character, making character input operation on the screen shown in Fig. 15, thereby inputting "character type data" that is a character code; áA specifying a desired position in accordance with a message "input a character string", and then, making character input operation, thereby inputting "character position data" (representative of X-Y coordinate values); and áB clicking an icon indicative of "a font size", thereby inputting "character style data" that consists of data representative of a character size and an aspect ratio; clicking an icon indicative of "italics", thereby inputting the "character style data" that consists of data representative of an inclination angle; and further, clicking the other icons indicative of "bold", "underline", and "increase or decrease of a character size" or inputting "font number data", thereby inputting "other character style data". These items of "character type data", "character position data, and "character style data" are registered in a memory as character data representative of display conditions of each character every time input operation is made. Thereafter, these items of data are subjected to image data processing such as drawing a character on the screen or editing work. Such functions of inputting and registering data of the Accused Device 3 conform to the constituent element A of the Third Patent Invention 1. (2) The constituent element B In the Accused Device 3, when characters "AA", "BB", and "CC" were inputted by input operations executed thrice, the data was stored in a manner such that "input AA", "input BB" and "input AA", as well as "input CC", "input BB", and "input AA" are stacked so that they can be "undone" by one step back. With referring to the data storage history, it is seen that additive counting has been done on a stack-by-stack basis like "input CC", "input BB", and "input AA", every time the data is inputted; and further, data is retained as data indicative of the number of valid registered characters from the first registered character "input AA" to the last registered character "input CC", every time input operation is effected. In this manner, in the Accused Device 3, registered data is managed by a stacking method (hereinafter referred to as "Stack"). In the Stack, an area in which data can be registered is provided in advance. When data is registered, the data is registered sequentially from a first memory position. When next data is registered, new data is registered following the already registered data. Thus, it is, of course, necessary to know a memory position of the registered data. The means for knowing a memory position functions as a registration counter, and the Accused Device 3 has the registration counter, as is clear from the following in view of the memory history shown in Figs. 16 to 18. If there is a registered character, additive counting operation is effected so that the registration position in the memory is expressed by the count from the first position to the registration position in the memory, whereby the count can be recognized as an effective data range. Such function for retaining the number of valid registered characters of the Accused Device 3 conforms to the constituent element B of the Third Patent Invention 1. (3) The constituent elements C and D According to the Accused Device 3, as shown in Fig. 19, when an icon indicative of "UNDO" is clicked in a state of the screen shot indicating that a third input operation has been finished, the characters "CC" inputted by the third input operation is erased from the screen shot (Fig. 20). Referring to the memory history after this erasure, the history corresponding to one stack of the last registered characters "input CC" has disappered, while characters "input BB" and "input AA" remain unchanged. At this time, in the memory history, as shown in Fig. 21, an icon "UNDO BY ONE STEP" is clicked in a state in which "a first registered stack" to "a fourth registered stack" are stacked. Then, as shown in Fig. 22, "the fourth registered stack" is erased, and the state has been changed such that "the first registered stack" to "the third registered stack" are stacked. Therefore, the Accused Device 3 functions as character erasing means for excluding character data on the last registered character (that is, the fourth registered stack) from an effective registration range so that erasing the character data on the last registered character is erased as the result of the exclusion. This character erasing function of the Accused Device 3 conforms to the constituent elements C and D of the Third Patent Invention 1. (4) The constituent element E The same as set forth as to the Accused Device 1 in 2 1)(7) applies here (except that the "First Patent Invention" should read as "the Third Patent Invention 1".) 2) The Defendant's assertion (1) The constituent elements A to D According to the section of "Detailed Description of the Invention" as shown in Fig. 5 (Fig. 23) of the specification of the Third Patent Invention 1, it is understood that this register/memory means has a stack structure (a last-in- first-out) such that character data MOJI1 is registered at the uppermost stack, then, MOJI2, MOJI3.... are sequentially registered at a next lower stack one by one in a descending order. Moreover, according to Fig. 6 (Fig. 24), it can be understood that each of registered character data MOJI1, MOJI2, MOJI3.... has character type data, character position data, and character style data. Thus, it follows that there is the requirement that each registered character data must have the above three data. On the other hand, in UNDO, i.e., a function of "reverting to the last operation" executed on the document in WordArt of the Accused Device 3, an UNDO memory does not have a memory structure of character data creating means of the Third Patent as shown in Figs. 5 and 6 in the specification of the Third Patent Invention 1. The function of "reverting to the last action" in the Accused Device 3 is not implemented by a structure like the structure of character data erasing means of the Third Patent Invention, either. However, arguendo, suppose that the UNDO memory in the Accused Device 3 has the structure of character data creating means of the Third Patent Invention, and the function of "reverting to the last action" of the Accused Device 3 is implemented by the structure of character data erasing means of the Third Patent Invention. Then, there arises the following contradiction. Here, character A is inserted into a Word document, using WordArt (e.g., an arch-shaped character), and subsequently, character B is inserted thereinto. The resultant screen shot is as shown in Fig. 25. That is, characters A and B are superimposed at a so-called default position. Next, the position of character B is moved as shown in Fig. 26. In this state, if the UNDO memory of the Accused Device 3 has the structure of character data creating means of the Third Patent, the UNDO memory of the Accused Device 3 should be designed as follows. MOJI1 = type data, style data, position data (a position of A) for "A" MOJI2 = type data, style data, position data (a position of B) for "B" Here, suppose that the function of "reverting to the last operation" of the Accused Device 3 has character data erasing means of the Third Patent. When UNDO, which the Plaintiff alleges as last character erasing means, is carried out once, then, supposed character counting means is caused to make subtractive counting operation, so that the last character should be erased and only character A should be displayed. However, when UNDO is carried out once, the result is not such that character A alone is displayed, but as a matter of fact, character B is merely moved to the original default position. That is, character B as the last character is not erased by UNDO operation, but it is merely superimposed to character A. It means that the Accused Device 3 does not have any of the constituent elements A to D of the Third Patent Invention 1. Therefore, the Accused Device 3 does not infringe the Third Patent Invention 1. The UNDO function of MS Word is capable of sequentially erasing operations which have been effected by the user one by one, beginning with the last operation (i.e., it is not a function of erasing characters). Thus, it is not necessary to count the number of created characters, and it is not counted in fact. Further, in Standard Toolbar (Undo) of Word, when a downward arrow on the right side of UNDO icon is clicked, operations which enable undo are listed. "Data on operation history" including not only character input, but also various operations relating to document editing, such as drawing a line, erasing characters and copying, are registered, but character data is not registered therein. Therefore, the Accused Device 3 fails to conform to the constituent elements A and B of the Third Patent Invention 1. Moreover, since the UNDO function of MS Word does not require to count the number of characters, it does not erase operation information registered in a register by "a subtractive counting operation" for the number of characters in the Third Patent Invention 1. Therefore, the Accused Device 3 also fails to include the constituent elements C and D of the Third Patent Invention 1. (2) The constituent element E The same as set forth as to the Accused Device 1 in 2 2)(3) applies here (except that "the First Patent Invention" should read as "the Third Patent Invention 1".) 5. The Third Patent Invention 2 1) The Plaintiff's assertion (1) The constituent elements a and b The constituent elements a and b are the same as the constituent elements A and B of the Third Patent Invention 1. Therefore, the same as set forth as to the Third Patent Invention 1 in 4 1)(1) and (2) applies here. (2) The constituent element c When input of characters "CC" has been completed, "the UNDO" icon is selected as shown in Fig. 27, thereby erasing the last inputted characters "CC" (Fig. 28). Therefore, the Accused Device 3 functions as erasing means for excluding character data on the last registered character from an effective registration range so that the character data is erased. Such character erasing function of the Accused Device 3 conforms to the constituent element c of the Third Patent Invention 2. (3) The constituent element d The constituent element d is the same as the constituent elements C and D of the Third Patent Invention 1. Therefore, the matters set forth as to the Third Patent Invention 1 in the above 4 1)(3) apply here. In view of the history in the memory, in the Accused Device 3, in a state that characters "AA", "BB", and "CC" are sequentially inputted as shown in Fig. 29, registered-character counting means is caused to perform a subtractive counting operation (e.g., characters "CC" are erased by representation clearing means), so that the history in the memory has a function of serving as character data erasing means for causing the stack count number to be subtracted as shown in Fig. 30, thereby excluding character data on the last registered character data from the effective registration range so that the character data on the last registered character data is erased as a result of the exclusion. Hence, the Accused Device 3 has a function of serving as character data erasing means. Such character erasing function of the Accused Device 3 conforms to the constituent element d of the Third Patent Invention 2. (4) The constituent element e For instance, a character "I" is registered by a first input operation as shown in Fig. 31; thereafter, in a state in which the character "H" is registered in a manner such that the character "H" is superimposed on the character "I" by a second input operation, as shown in Fig. 32, "the UNDO" icon is clicked, thereby erasing the last inputted character "H" as shown in Fig. 33. At this time, as shown in Fig. 34, the Accused Device 3 not only erases the character "H" superimposed on the character "I", but also displays the character "I" with its portion superimposed with "H" being restored. This indicates that data on the character "I", which was stacked in the memory by a previous input operation, is redisplayed on the screen shot, after the character "H" is erased. Incidentally, there is only one displaying data for displaying an image to be assigned to each position (each dot) on the screen shot. If a portion of the displaying data were to be erased, there should exist no image data on the erased portion as shown in Fig. 35, and thus, a blank portion should appear without being restored. Such character erasing function of the Accused Device 3 conforms to the constituent element e of the Third Patent Invention 2. (5) The constituent element f The same as set forth as to the Accused Device 1 in the above 2 1) (7) applies here (except that "the First Patent Invention" should read as "the Third Patent Invention 2".) 2) The Defendant's argument The same as set forth as to the Third Patent Invention 1 in the above 4 2) applies here (except that "the constituent element A" and "the constituent element B" should read as "the constituent element a" and "the constituent element b", respectively; "the constituent element C" or "the constituent element D" should read as "the constituent element c"; and "the constituent element E" should read as "the constituent element f".) III. Court Decision 1) The First Patent Invention 1. In view of the description given at "the Detailed Description of the Invention" section in the specification of the First Patent Invention (Exhibit A1: Publication of Grant of Patent), together with the above uncontestable facts, the following matters are identified as facts. The First Patent Invention is a block copy design apparatus for printing design elements (referred to as characters) such as a character, a number, a symbol, and a figure on a fabric such as a sports shirt. Further, the First Patent Invention has means for, when it is specified that the characters are to be arranged in an arch-shaped arrangement, inputting P1 (a first point) as a starting point for drawing an ellipse, P2 (a second point) as a terminating point for drawing it, and P3 (a third point) representing a height of the arch-shape arrangement; allocating respective characters of a character string on a character arrangement locus representing a portion of a circle or an ellipse which runs from the first point to the second point via the third point; and determining sizes and rotational angles of the respective characters thus allocated. In addition, the First Patent Invention has means for judging whether or not space is to be changed based upon a relationship between one character and a next character as allocated in the character string, and means for moving the next character by a predetermined amount when it is judged that the change of the space is needed. Still furthermore, in the First Patent Invention, the starting point P1 for drawing the ellipse and the terminating point P2 for drawing the ellipse, and the point P3 representing a height of the arch-shaped arrangement are inputted for drawing the ellipse; and a character arrangement locus which represents a portion of a circle or an ellipse which runs from the first point to the second point via the third point is calculated, thereby determining an elliptic arc. 2. On the other hand, in view of Exhibit B1, the entire gist of the arguments, and the uncontestable facts, etc., the following matters are identified as facts: Among the accused products, Microsoft Word, which is wordprocessor software, is produced and sold under the trade name Microsoft Office in the form of a piece of CD-ROM disk after Microsoft Word is installed therein in combination with a plurality of software products such as Microsoft Excel which is spreadsheet software. Microsoft Word incorporates "WordArt" which is a function of modifying a character. This function enables to arrange characters in an arch-shape. In the Accused Device 1, an elliptic arc is determined in a manner that the arch-shaped arrangement is adjusted by 8 size changing handles (points a to c and points e to h) and one adjusting handle (a point d), as shown in Fig. 2. The size changing handles are means for changing the size of the ellipse, while the adjusting handle is means for determining to which extent of the ellipse the characters are allocated. 3. As seen from the above, it is obvious that an inputting method of the Accused Device 1 differs from that of the subject patent invention. In the Accused Device 1, the character arrangement locus is changed by changing positions of the eight size changing handles, and further, a range in which the characters are arranged is changed by operating the adjusting handle. Hence, á@ control points are inputted by the size changing handles, thereby calculating the locus of the ellipse; and áA a central angle of the ellipse is inputted by the adjusting handle, thereby calculating the range of the character arrangement on the locus of the ellipse. Consequently, the Accused Device 1 differs from the First Patent Invention in which data on a first point representing a starting point for drawing an arch-shaped character arrangement, a second point indicative of a terminating point of drawing, and a third point representing a height are inputted, thereby calculating the character arrangement locus by using the inputted data on the three points. Therefore, the Accused Device 1 does not conform to the constituent elements áA and áB of the First Patent Invention. In this connection, the Plaintiff asserts as follows: Like the First Patent Invention, the size changing handles of the Accused Device 1 have a function of inputting data specifying a first point as a starting point for drawing a character string, a second point as a terminating point for drawing, and a third point specifying a height of a curvature of the arch-shaped character string, although there is a difference in an inputting method between the First Patent Invention and the Accused Device 1. However, this point has not been proved in the present case (because of the nature of the First Patent invention directed to the object to print characters in arch-shaped arrangement on a sports shirt or the like, it is important that characters disposed in the arch- shaped arrangement are printed on specified positions in the First Patent Invention. Thus, it is inferred that the aforementioned methods of inputting and determining are employed in the First Patent Invention. On the other hand, the Accused Device 1 is software for such as a general-purpose wordprocessor. Its use differs from that of the First Patent Invention. Therefore, it is thought that it is not important to specify a position, etc. in the Accused Device 1. In view of such differences between the First Patent Invention and the Accused Device 1 in object and use, it is difficult to infer that the Accused Device 1 has the same calculation function as that of the First Patent Invention, as asserted by the Plaintiff.) In the light of the above, the Accused Device 1 fails to conform to the constituent elements áA and áB of the First Patent Invention, and thus, the Accused Device 1 is not deemed as infringing the First Patent Invention. 2) The Second Patent Invention 1. The Accused Device 2-1 Considering the description of the Detailed Description of the Invention section of the specification (Exhibit A3. Publication of Grant of Patent) of the second patent invention in view of the uncontestable facts set forth above, and the gist of the arguments, the Second Patent Invention employs the following method. That is, in order to draw a multiple character (an outlined character), an origin of a character is determined at the inside or outside of the original character. A predetermined width ratio is determined therefrom. Then, the original character is multiplied by the predetermined width ratio, and the inner or outer line is drawn, thereby drawing the outlined character. In contrast, in order to draw the similar character, the Defendant's Accused Device 2-1 employs a method in which the thickness of the outer frame of an original character is determined and used as a basis for drawing the outline of the original character. From these facts identified above, the Second Patent Invention is apparently different from the Accused Device 2-1 in an inputting method. The Plaintiff alleges as follows: The Second Patent Invention is worked in the Accused Device 2-1 as explained below. That is, "outlined white character" is selected on a WordArt Gallery screen shot, followed by inputting a character, for example "T". Thereafter, when "Solid Line" and "Thickness" are inputted in "a WordArt Format Setting Screen Shot", "Thick" and "Solid Line" are selected. Then, the thick solid line is drawn on the outline of the outlined white character. This shows that the Second Patent Invention is worked in the Accused Device 2-1. However, in "the outlined white character" of the WordArt Gallery, the following points are deemed as being not necessarily clear from this screen shot: "A width ratio of a first character width to a second character width is obtained"; " character data indicative of positions of display points constituting a first character pattern is multiplied by a width ratio", thereby obtaining second design data"; and "second origin data indicative of the origin of the second character pattern is obtained". Further, according to Exhibits A13 and 14 and Exhibits B37 to B39, it is considered that a method (Display Postscript) of tracing display points specified in accordance with design data, with a pen having its round tip and a given diameter to thereby draw an outline with a predetermined thickness was publicly known in 1988 at the latest. That is, it is thought that a method for drawing "an outlined white character" other than the Second Patent Invention was publicly known at the time of selling Word 97. Thus, in the present case, there is no sufficient basis to be relied upon to determine that in the Accused Device 2-1, "a width ratio of a first character width to a second character width is obtained"; " character data indicative of positions of display points constituting a first character pattern is multiplied by a width ratio, thereby obtaining second design data"; and "second origin data indicative of the origin of the second character pattern is obtained". As set forth above, it is not deemed that the Accused Device 2-1 conforms to the constituent elements (aa), (bb), (cc), (dd), and (ee). Hence, the Accused Device 2-1 cannot be deemed as infringing the Second Patent Right. 2. The Accused Device 2-2 Considering the description of the Detailed Description of the Invention section of the specification (Exhibit A3. Publication of Grant of Patent) of the second patent invention in view of the uncontestable facts set forth above, and the gist of the arguments, the Second Patent Invention employs the following method. That is, an origin of a character is determined at the inside or outside of the original character in order to draw a dotted-outline character in the same manner as described in the preceding paragraph. A given width ratio is determined therefrom (the determined width is specified as an outline). Then, the original character is multiplied with the given width ratio, thereby drawing the inner or outer character. In contrast, in the Defendant's Accused Device 2-2, there is provided a method in which the thickness of the outline to be drawn at the outside of an original character is determined, and this thickness is used as the outline of the original character. From these facts identified here, the Second Patent Invention is obviously different from the Accused Device 2- 2 in an inputting method. The Plaintiff alleges that the Second Patent Invention is worked in the Accused Device 2-2 as explained below. That is, "an outlined white character" is selected on the WordArt Gallery screen shot, followed by inputting a character "T", for example. Thereafter, "when the filling / color is set to "red", and the line is set to "dotted line" and "black" on "WordArt Format Setting Screen Shot", a black dotted line with an outline of a red character is drawn. This shows that the Second Patent Invention is worked in the Accused Device 2-2. However, in "the outlined character" of the WordArt Gallery, the following points are deemed as being not necessarily clear from this screen shot: "a width ratio of a first character width to a second character width is obtained"; and " character data indicative of positions of display points constituting a first character pattern is multiplied by a width ratio, thereby obtaining second design data". In the Accused Device 2-2, a width ratio between "a non-outlined red character" and "a black dotted outline" is 1. Thus, even if the width ratio is not determined or even if the width ratio is not multiplied, the second design data is considered to be obtainable. Further, it is also considered that a dotted line with a thick width can be drawn by the aforementioned publicly known art (Display Postscript). Thus, in the present case, there is no sufficient proof which has been shown to determine that in the Accused Device 2-2, "a width ratio of a first character width to a second character width is obtained"; and "character data indicative of positions of display points constituting a first character pattern is multiplied by a width ratio, thereby obtaining second design data". As set forth above, it is not deemed that the Accused Device 2-2 conforms to the constituent elements (aa), (bb), (cc), (dd), and (ee) of the Second Patent Invention. Hence, the Accused Device 2-2 cannot be deemed as infringing the Second Patent Right. 3. The Accused Device 2-3 Considering the description of the Detailed Description of the Invention section of the specification (Exhibit A3. Publication of Grant of Patent) of the second patent invention in view of the uncontestable facts set forth above, and the gist of the arguments, the Second Patent Invention employs the following method. That is, in order to draw a shaded character, an origin of a character is determined at the inside or outside of the original character in the same manner as described in the foregoing. A given width ratio is determined therefrom. Then, the original character is multiplied by this width ratio, thereby drawing a shade at the inside or outside of the character. In contrast, in the Defendant's Accused Device 2-3, there is provided a method in which the size and position of a shade are preset to several types in order to draw a shade at the outside of the original character or the like, from which a shade is selected and added to the back of a character or the like. From these facts identified above, the Second Patent Invention is obviously different from the Accused Device 2-3 in an inputting method. The Plaintiff alleges that the Second Patent Invention is worked in the Accused Device 2-3 as explained below. That is, "outlined white character" is selected on the WordArt Gallery screen shot, followed by inputting a character "T", for example. Thereafter, when the filling / color is set to "red" and the line / color is set "No line" in "WordArt Format Setting Screen Shot", a non-outlined red character is drawn. Then, when an icon for "specifying a shade" is selected, a gray shade is drawn on the non-outlined red character. This implies that the Second Patent Invention is worked in the Accused Device 2-3. However, in "the outlined character" of the WordArt Gallery, the following points are deemed as being not necessarily clear from this screen shot: "a position spaced by a predetermined change width at the inside or outside of a first character pattern is specified"; "a width ratio of a first character width to a second character width is determined"; and "character data indicative of positions of display points constituting a first character pattern is multiplied by the width ratio, thereby determining second design data". Thus, in the present case, there is no sufficient proof which has been shown to determine that in the Accused Device 2-3, "a position spaced by a predetermined change width at the inside or outside of a first character pattern is specified"; "a width ratio of a first character width to a second character width is determined"; and "character data indicative of positions of display points constituting a first character pattern is multiplied by the width ratio, thereby determining second design data". As set forth above, it is not deemed that the Accused Device 2-3 conforms to the constituent elements (aa), (bb), (cc), (dd), and (ee) of the Second Patent Invention. Hence, the Accused Device 2-3 cannot be deemed as infringing the Second Patent Right. 3) The Third Patent Invention 1. Considering the description of "the Detailed Description of the Invention" section of the specification of the Third Patent Invention (Exhibit A5, Publication of Grant of Patent) in view of the uncontestable facts set forth above, and the gist of the arguments, the Third Patent Invention employs the following method. That is, The Third Patent Inventions 1 and 2 are identified as comprising: character data creating means for, during creating of each character, registering character data MOJI1.... consisting of character type data, character position data, and character style data in character register/memory means according to a creating sequence, and causing registered- character counting means to perform an additive counting operation, whereby the count content is held as data indicative of the number of valid registered characters from a first registered character MOJI1 to a last registered character; and character data erasing means for, during erasing of each character, causing the registered-character counting means to perform a subtractive counting operation, thereby excluding the character data on the last registered character from an effective registration range so that the character data on the last registered character is erased as a result of the exclusion. Further, the Third Patent Inventions 1 and 2 are identified as comprising a memory having: character type data, character position data, and character style data in one character information (MOJI1....), for each of the characters. For example, a command which determines the size or the like of the character is contained in the character information as well. In view of the facts identified above, it can be deemed that when erasing one character, the character data is erased for each character as well (character erasing). 2. On the other hand, according to the gist of the arguments, the Accused Device 3 has a so-called UNDO function in computer software, and this function is for undoing operation once executed. There is not a sufficient proof which has been shown to determine that in the Accused Device 3, during creating of each character, character data MOJI 1.... consisting of character type data, character position data, and character style data are registered in character register/memory means according to a creating sequence, and the Accused Device 3 has the registered-character counting means. For example, in the Standard Toolbar of MS Word, a downward arrow in the right side of UNDO icon is clicked so that UNDO operations are listed. "Data on operation history" including not only character inputting, but also various operations relating to document editing, such as drawing a line, erasing a character and copying, is registered in the listing. The Plaintiff asserts that data related to operation and character data processed depending upon the operation should be processed so as to maintain a relationship having one-to-one correspondence. The Plaintiff asserts that this requirement is met in the Accused Device 3. However, it is not at all proved that "the data on operation history" has "character data" in the Accused Device 3. Further, the Plaintiff asserts that, when a plurality of characters are registered by one data (e.g., "AAAAA" and "BBBBB"), the characters are registered/erased on a registered-character-group basis. However, it is not clear what happen to the character type data, character position data, and character style data when a plurality of characters are registered by one operation. Therefore, it is not proved that characters are registered or erased on a registered- character-group basis. As set forth above, the Accused Device 3 fails to conform to the constituent elements A and B of the Third Patent Invention 1 and the constituent elements a and b of the Third Patent Invention 2, and thus, the Accused Device 3 cannot be deemed as infringing the Third Patent Right. IV. Whether the Accused Devices directly or indirectly infringe the subject patents: 1. As set forth above, it cannot be deemed that each of the Accused Devices conforms to each of the constituent elements of the First Patent Invention to the Third Patent Inventions 1 and 2. Consequently, Each of the Accused Devices cannot be deemed as infringing the First to Third Patent Rights. 2. To add, the Plaintiff's First Patent Invention and the Third Patent Inventions 1 and 2 are directed to a block copy design apparatus, and the Second Patent Invention is directed to a block copy design method, whereas each of the Accused Devices is a part of a recording medium having a general-purpose program for document processing fixedly recorded therein. An apparatus such as a personal computer incorporating it is a general-purpose document processing apparatus, but not "a block copy design apparatus". Further, a method implemented by the above apparatus is "a general-purpose document processing method", but not "a block copy design forming method". Therefore, the Accused Devices are not "articles to be used exclusively for the manufacture of the product" pursuant to Section 101, Item 1 of the Japanese Patent Law, in relation to the First Patent Invention and the Third Patent Inventions 1 and 2. The Accused Devices are not "articles to be used exclusively for the working of such invention" prescribed under Section 101, Item 2 of the same Law, in relation to the Second Patent Invention. Therefore, the Accused Devices do not constitute an indirect infringement. V. In the light of the above, there is no reason in the Plaintiff's demand without the need to deciding the remaining points. Thus, the Court has rendered the decision as stated in the main text in the present case. (Date of conclusion of oral proceedings: April 27, 2000) Civil Court Section 46, Tokyo District Court Ryoichi MIMURA, Chief Justice Hiroetsu MURAKOSHI, Justice Tetsuro NAKAYOSHI, Justice LIST OF THE ACCUSED DEVICES (ATTACHED SHEET) I. The Accused Device 1 A recording medium having a program fixedly recorded thereon in WordArt included in Microsoft Office, wherein the program is for arranging characters on an ellipse or a circular orbit, and is fixedly recorded in the form of a pit at a predetermined address location on a compact disc or in the form of a magnetization region at a predetermined address location on a hard disk. II. The Accused Device 2 A recording medium having a program fixedly recorded thereon in WordArt included in Microsoft Office, wherein the program is for drawing a character in superimposition on another character, and is fixedly recorded in the form of a pit at a predetermined address location on a compact disc or in the form of a magnetization region at a predetermined address location on a hard disk. 1. The Accused Device 2-1 An application software program portion in the above medium, the program being for creating a solid-line outlined character pattern whose outline has a specified thickness. 2. The Accused Device 2-2 An application software program portion in the above medium, the program being for creating a dotted-line outlined character pattern. 3. The Accused Device 2-3 An application software program portion in the above medium, the program being for creating a shaded character pattern. III. The Accused Device 3 A recording medium having a program fixedly recorded thereon in Microsoft Office, wherein the program is for erasing last registered character data, and is fixedly recorded in the form of a pit at a predetermined address location on a compact disc or in the form of a magnetization region at a predetermined address location on a hard disk.