DOCSLIB.ORG

Patents 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patents 2020 International Comparative Legal Guides Patents 2020 A practical cross-border insight into patent law 10th Edition Featuring contributions from: A&L Goodbody Gleiss Lutz Reinhold Cohn & Partners, Reinhold Cohn Group Bär & Karrer Ltd. Gorodissky & Partners Ukraine Reising Ethington P.C. Bech-Bruun Gowling WLG Rouse Bird & Bird LLP Kadasa Intellectual Property Setterwalls Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Shearn Delamore & Co. CAPE IP law LexOrbis Studio Legale Russo Valentini Chuo Sogo Law Office, P.C. Lifang & Partners SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan Daniel Law Morgan & Morgan Templars De Beer Attorneys Inc. Nestor Nestor Diculescu Kingston Petersen TIPLO Attorneys-at-Law DERIS OLIVARES Wikborg Rein Advokatfirma AS Duane Morris LLP Oxera Consulting LLP Elzaburu Patrinos & Kilimiris Gilat, Bareket & Co., Reinhold Cohn Group Pham & Associates ICLG.com Table of Contents Expert Chapters International FRAND: The last 18 months and what lies ahead 1 Jane Mutimear & Richard Vary, Bird & Bird LLP Valuation of FRAND: Recent developments and looking forward 6 Dr. Avantika Chowdhury & Shreya Gupta, Oxera Consulting LLP 12 Can We Just Be Reasonable? Scott A. Hogan, Reising Ethington P.C. Many (Un)happy Returns: Government Cannot Initiate Post-Grant Invalidation Proceedings Under the America Invents Act, U.S. 17 Supreme Court Says D. Stuart Bartow, Duane Morris LLP Amendments to the Russian Legislation on Inventions and Utility Models 21 Maxim Sobolev, Rouse & Co. International (UK) Limited (Moscow Branch) 24 Gulf Co-operation Council Countries – Patent Landscape Sara Holder, Rouse & Co. International Mohammad Jomoa, Kadasa Intellectual Property Country Q&A Chapters 27 Australia 115 Israel Bird & Bird LLP: Jane Owen & Rebecca Currey Reinhold Cohn Group: Eran Bareket & Ronnie Benshafrut 34 Belgium 123 Italy CAPE IP law: Patricia Cappuyns & Véronique Pede Studio Legale Russo Valentini: Roberto Bonatti 42 Brazil 129 Japan Daniel Law: Rana Gosain & Ricardo Nunes Chuo Sogo Law Office, P.C.: Naoko Nakatsukasa Malaysia 50 Canada 137 Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP: Anthony Prenol & Shearn Delamore & Co.: Timothy Siaw & Brett Slaney Pravind Chandra 57 China 144 Mexico Lifang & Partners: Manxia Xu OLIVARES: Daniel Sanchez y Bejar, Sergio Luis Olivares Lobato & José Alejandro Luna Fandiño 64 Denmark Bech-Bruun: Klaus Ewald Madsen & 154 Myanmar Martin Dræbye Gantzhorn Rouse: Fabrice Mattei & Moe Mynn Thu 72 France 161 Nigeria Gowling WLG: Céline Bey & Clémence Lapôtre Templars: Ijeoma Uju & Osayimwense Ogbeta 85 Germany 168 Norway Gleiss Lutz: Dr. Matthias Sonntag & Dr. Herwig Lux Wikborg Rein Advokatfirma AS: Gunnar Meyer & Åse Røynestad Konsmo 92 Greece Patrinos & Kilimiris: Constantinos Kilimiris 175 Panama Morgan & Morgan: María Eugenia Brenes Tovar 98 India LexOrbis: Joginder Singh, Varun Sharma & 182 Philippines Dr. Pradeep Kumar Kamal SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan: Vida M. Panganiban-Alindogan & Anna Loraine M. Mendoza 107 Ireland A&L Goodbody: John Whelan, Alison Quinn & 189 Romania Sinéad Mitchell King Nestor Nestor Diculescu Kingston Petersen: Sorina Olaru, Daniela Savin (Ghervas) & Alina Tace (Dumitru) Table of ContentsXX 196 Russia 247 Thailand Rouse & Co. International (UK) Limited (Moscow Rouse: Fabrice Mattei & Manoon Changchumni Branch): Maxim Sobolev & Andrey Cherkasov 255 Turkey 202 Saudi Arabia Deriş Attorney-At-Law Partnership: Kadasa Intellectual Property (in association with Rouse & Mehmet Nazım Aydın Deriş, Okan Çan & Oya Yalvaç Co. International): Mohammad Jomoa & Sara Holder 264 Ukraine 209 South Africa Gorodissky & Partners Ukraine: Nina Moshynska De Beer Attorneys Inc.: Elaine Bergenthuin & Claire Gibson 272 United Arab Emirates Rouse & Co. International: Sara Holder 217 Spain Elzaburu: Colm Ahern & Alessandro Pelliccioni 278 United Kingdom Bird & Bird LLP: Katharine Stephens & Audrey Horton 223 Sweden Setterwalls: Martin Levinsohn & Per Lidman 289 USA Kirkland & Ellis LLP: Kenneth R. Adamo & 230 Switzerland Bär & Karrer Ltd.: Dr. Markus Wang & Dr. Jonas Eugene Goryunov Bornhauser 297 Vietnam Pham & Associates: Pham Vu Khanh Toan 238 Taiwan TIPLO Attorneys-at-Law: J. K. Lin & H. G. Chen ICLG.com Chapter 20XX 129 Japan Japan Chuo Sogo Law Office, P.C. Naoko Nakatsukasa 1 Patent Enforcement 1.4 What has to be done to commence proceedings, what court fees have to be paid and how long does it generally take for proceedings to reach trial from commencement? 1.1 Before what tribunals can a patent be enforced against an infringer? Is there a choice between tribunals and what The proceedings commence by filing a complaint with a court of would influence a claimant’s choice? competent jurisdiction. A complaint should set out material facts and arguments that support the merits of each asserted claim. When Patent rights can be enforced either in the Tokyo District Court, the complaint is filed, the plaintiff must pay a court fee which varies which has exclusive jurisdiction over intellectual property cases in depending on the amount in dispute. For example, if the plaintiff eastern Japan, or in the Osaka District Court, which has exclusive seeks damages of 50,000,000 yen, the court fee would be 170,000 jurisdiction over such cases in western Japan. A defendant’s domicile yen. The amount in dispute for non-monetary remedies, such as or the place where the infringement occurred determines which of injunctive relief, is calculated based on a formula set out by the court. these courts has jurisdiction. In addition, if the plaintiff seeks A complaint is then served on the defendant(s) by the court along monetary damages, the plaintiff ’s domicile will determine which of with the summons. The first court hearing usually occurs four to six the two courts will have jurisdiction. Provisional injunctions may weeks after the complaint is filed. also be brought in the Tokyo District Court or the Osaka District Court. 1.5 Can a party be compelled to disclose relevant documents Patent cases brought before these two courts are heard by their or materials to its adversary either before or after respective Intellectual Property Divisions that specialise in intellectual property cases. Intellectual Property Divisions have a commencing proceedings, and if so, how? long history going back to the 1960s. The Intellectual Property High Court (“IP High Court”), which is a special branch of the Tokyo Although Japan does have an extensive American-style discovery High Court, has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals of patent cases system, the law provides for document production in certain cases. from both the Osaka District Court and the Tokyo District Court. It is generally each party’s responsibility to collect and submit evidence which it considers necessary to prove its case or rebut the 1.2 Can the parties be required to undertake mediation case of its adversary. However, under Article 105 of the Patent Act, the court may, upon the motion of a party, order the other party to before commencing court proceedings? Is mediation or produce documents that are required to prove the alleged arbitration a commonly used alternative to court infringement or to calculate damages. In addition, under Article 104- proceedings? 2 of the Patent Act, a defendant who denies that specific conditions of an article or process claimed by the plaintiff constitute alleged There are no such requirements. Neither mediation nor arbitration infringement is compelled to show evidence that clarifies the specific is commonly used with respect to patent enforcement. conditions of its act. Under Article 104, where the patent covers a process for producing a product, where the product was not publicly known prior to the filing of the patent application, the defendant 1.3 Who is permitted to represent parties to a patent dispute may be compelled to show evidence that its products are produced in court? by a process other than the patented process. Attorneys are qualified and permitted to represent parties to a patent 1.6 What are the steps each party must take pre-trial? Is any dispute in court. In Japanese practice, patent agents (patent technical evidence produced, and if so, how? attorneys – benrishi) are also permitted to represent a client in: 1) revocation procedures or other cases (without restriction); and 2) patent infringement cases, but only if he/she (x) has passed the There is no specifically required pre-trial procedure. Certain pre-trial specific examination, (y) has obtained a supplementary registration motions such as Inquiry prior to the Filing of an Action and the of specific infringement lawsuit counsel, and (z) represents the same Collection of Evidence Prior to the Filing of an Action are available client in the same court case with an attorney. under the Civil Procedure Code (Article 132-2 and Article 132-4). The scope of pre-trial activities is generally documentary. Patents 2020 ICLG.com © Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London 130 Japan 1.7 How are arguments and evidence presented at the trial? the Constitution and the laws. However, as a matter of practice, judges tend to be bound by precedents, to promote legal stability. Can a party change its pleaded arguments before and/or at trial? 1.12 Are there specialist judges or hearing officers, and if so, do they have a technical background? Arguments and evidence are presented by each party at each court hearing, which takes place once every four to six weeks (see question 1.8), generally based only on documents. A party can change its Judges of the IP High Court and the Intellectual Property Divisions pleaded arguments unless the court finds that (i) under Article 157 in Tokyo and Osaka District Courts (see question 1.1) are special of the Civil Procedure Code, the new argument has been presented judges who handle only IP cases. Although they have considerable after the submission deadline either intentionally or through gross experience in IP matters, very few have a technical background. negligence and that allowing the new argument would delay the Experts with knowledge and experience in relevant fields are asked conclusion of litigation, or (ii) the prior argument is found to to participate as technical advisors.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Japan Patent Office Long-Term Fellowship Program on The
    Japan Patent Office Long-term Fellowship Program on the Intellectual Property under the Japan Patent Office FY2019 Research Theme: Considerations towards the adoption of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) in Argentina - Learning from the awareness and promo- tion of the PCT in Japan Submitted By Alejandro Javier Cafiero (Argentina) Universidad Nacional de La Plata (UNLP) Supervisor: Dr. Yorimasa Suwa Senior Researcher, APIC-JIPII Advisor: Prof. Junji Nakagawa Faculty of Liberal Arts, Chuo Gakuin University Mr. Daisuke NAGANO General Manager/ Patent Attorney Policy & Strategic, International Affairs Division Japan Intellectual Property Association The views and findings in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and policy of the organization or sponsor of this study. ○c JPO 2020 Abstract The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is a multilateral treaty of vital importance for the harmonization of the Patent system at the international level. Applicants of coun- tries that have accessed the PCT benefit by having affordable, simpler international filing procedures and speedier preliminary examinations. National Patent Offices are also im- proved by accessing the Treaty, as they are required to comply with several international standards. 153 countries have accessed the Treaty to date. Despite the advantages of taking part of the PCT, Argentina has refused to access it, mostly due to a lack of a national IP strategy, misconceptions about the PCT and the op-position of some domestic pharmaceutical companies. The lack of PCT availability in Argentinian puts domestic applicants at a disad- vantage against international counterparts. Such applicants range from universities, re- search centers and innovative companies to entrepreneurs and inventors.
    [Show full text]
  • Japan Patent & Trademark Update
    TMI Associates Issue7 (July 2017) Japan Patent & The reason for this misconception could be that some in the below graph, in 70% of patent infringement lawsuits First, as shown in the below graph, the number of patent In sum, the decrease in the total number of patent applications by 2007; however, the Defendant continued using the articles discuss statistics regarding Japanese patent the judges did not make any decisions on the validity of the applications filed from the other IP5 countries does not show seems to have mostly come from the change in patent filing trademark “Eemax”. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for Unfair Trademark Update lawsuits based only on those cases which have reached a patents. Further, in 43% of patent infringement lawsuits, such a decrease. Rather, the number of patent applications filed policy, i.e., shifting the focus from quantity to quality Competition asserting that the Defendant’s use of “Eemax” was judgment. The information on settled cases, as shown in even though the plaintiffs made invalidation arguments, the by U.S. entities has actually been increasing since 2013. of patents, and not as a result of any decrease in the impermissible given that it is a well-known trademark of the the above graph, was not announced before, and such judges still did not make any decisions with respect to validity. importance of obtaining patent protection in Japan. Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff had not registered the mark. In success rate could previously only be examined based on In other words, it is inappropriate to derive any significant Number of patent applications filed by foreign entities response, the Defendant filed a counterclaim asserting that the cases in which judgments were rendered.
    [Show full text]
  • The IPDL (Includes Pajs) & AIPN
    TopicTopic 99 TechniqueTechniquess forfor AccessingAccessing Databases:Databases: thethe IPDLIPDL (includes(includes PAJsPAJs)) && AIPNAIPN Taro Daiko Patent Information Policy Planning Office Japan Patent Office 1 Topics 1. Importance of accessing databases 2. Services provided by the JPO -IPDL (including PAJs) -AIPN 3. Summary 2 Topics 1. Importance of accessing databases 2. Services provided by the JPO -IPDL (including PAJs) -AIPN 3. Summary 3 1. Importance of accessing databases ・Utilization of documents cited in international phases and national phases ・Utilization of examination information (File Wrapper Information) of other foreign patent offices Accessing databases in IP Offices leads to work-sharing and efficient examinations in each IP Offices. International Phase Receiving Office Search Cited JP documents Reports National Phase IPDL IP IP JPO Office A Office B AIPN JPO IPDL Examination information Cited JP documents 4 1. Importance of accessing databases JPO provides two databases that can be accessed to obtain JP documents and JPO's examination information Foreign IP Offices IPDL AIPN *Public Use *Examiner-only Use (1)JP documents JPO’s Examination ・Patent Information ・ ・Utility Model Office Actions ・ ・Design Dossier Information ・ ・Trademark Legal Status ・Cited Document ・ (2) Patent Abstracts of Patent Family Japan (PAJ) 5 Topics 1. Importance of accessing databases 2. Services provided by the JPO -IPDL (including PAJs) -AIPN 3. Summary 6 Search Example of IPDL Documents Patent & Utility Model Gazette Database - Patents and utility model gazettes can be searched by number and classification (FI/F term). - All items of information (except drawings) are translated by machine. An example of publications of unexamined patent applications 7 What is the IPDL? IPDL＝Industrial Property Digital Library *URL: http://www.ipdl.inpit.go.jp/homepg_e.ipdl Patent & Utility Model Database Machine Translation PAJ Database Design Database Trademark Database Machine Translation IPDL’s Database in English 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Role of Patent Attorney 2009.Pdf
    CONTENTS Page I. Patent·······················································································································································1 1. General Views ·································································································································1 2. The Role of a Patent Attorney ·······································································································3 3. The Dialogue with Applicants·······································································································4 (1) Approach by Applicants··········································································································4 (2) Conflict of Interest ···················································································································5 (3) Responsibilities of Patent Attorneys······················································································8 4. Search ···············································································································································9 5. Preparation and Filing of Patent Applications·············································································9 (1) Documents Required···············································································································9 (2) The Task of a Patent Attorney ······························································································11 (3) Order
    [Show full text]
  • Trademark Updates in Japan 2019
    R egional Collective Trademarks E XAMINATION FLOW Regional collective trademarks are trademarks that consist of regions’ names and the names After completing formality checks, examiners conduct substantive examination. If they find no of goods (and/or services) particular to the respective regions. They are registered by reasons for refusal, they will send a “Decision of Registration” to the applicant, and the associations affiliated with the regions, who intend to let their members use the trademarks, as trademark will be granted exclusive rights after the applicant pays the applicable registration Trademark long as the trademarks have become well known in a certain area. fee. In the event that are reasons for refusal, the examiners notify the applicant of reasons and give opportunities for the applicant to make corrections and give opinions to overcome the Registration No. 5069264 Registration No. 5068214 refusal. If not resolved, the application will be refused. The applicant, in this situation, can 「神戸ビーフ」（Kobe Beef） （Yokohama Chinatown） appeal to reverse the examiner’s decision. Updates Trademark Application Publication of Formality Check application in Japan Substantive Examination Decision of Registration Notification of Reasons for Refusal Registration Fee Payment Written Argument Written Amendment Registration ■The Logo Mark of Regional Collective Trademarks Decision of Refusal The logo to right, which was launched in January 2018, is used to 10 years Publication of identify local specialties as those that have been registered under the trademark gazette Appeal against [omitted] regional-collective-trademark system. It was created to raise awareness Decision of Refusal Invalidation trial Extinguishment / 2 months Cancellation trial Renewal of right of the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Japan Patent Office
    The Case Studies of the Procedures under the New Employee Invention System November 2004 Japan Patent Office ※This is an unofficial translation. Introduction The new employee invention system shall, as a rule, entrust “appropriate remuneration” relating to employee-invention to a “voluntary agreement” between the employers and the employees. However, there are some inappropriate cases to be entrusted to the “voluntary agreement” because inappropriate decision can be decided due to difference in positions of the employers and the employees. Therefore, under the new employee invention system, where it is considered unreasonable to pay remuneration in accordance with the contract, employment regulation or other stipulations, remuneration calculated by consideration of certain elements shall be “appropriate remuneration” as well as in case of existing employee invention system. Unreasonableness shall be judged, particularly focusing on the procedural elements among those in the whole process until the remuneration is determined and paid. But, the new employee invention system does not define detailed procedures so that remuneration can be determined in response to various actual situations of the employers and the employees avoiding excessive intervention by setting the law which accompanies actual methods of consultation etc. On the other hand, “Improvement of employee invention system”, a report summarized by the Intellectual Property Policy Committee, has stated that the Patent Office should compile case studies which indicate when the determination of “remuneration” should be judged to be obviously unreasonable for the purpose of prevent the unreasonable determination of “remuneration” between the employers and the employees. Furthermore, in Diet proceedings, some members indicated that case studies to which the employers and the employees can refer for taking the procedure should be prepared.
    [Show full text]
  • Examination Handbook for Patent and Utility Model in Japan
    Examination Handbook for Patent and Utility Model Japan Patent Office Table of Contents Part I Outline of Examination Part II Description and Claims Part III Patentability Part IV Amendments of Description, Claims or Drawings Part V Priority Part VI Special Applications Part VII Foreign Language Written Applications Part VIII International Patent Application Part IX Extension of Patent Term Part X Utility Model Part XI Affairs in General Annex Annex A Case Examples Annex B Application examples of the specific technical fields Annex C Handbook for Preparing Report of the Utility Model Technical Opinion Annex D Court precedents Note: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shallPart prevail. I Chapter 1 Principles of the Examination and Flow of Examination Part I Oultine of Examination Contents Chapter 1 Principles of the Examination and Flow of Examination ......................... - 3 - 1101 Timing of Application of the Examination Guidelines and the Reasons for Refusal, etc. relating to the Examination Guidelines ............................................... - 3 - Chapter 2 Procedures of Examination ....................................................................... - 1 - 1201 Prior Art Searches by Registered Search Organizations .............................. - 1 - 1202 Submission of information to Patent Applications ....................................... - 3 - 1203 Examination When Utilizing the Search Result, etc. of Japan Patent Office as International Authority, Foreign
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to the Patent Prosecution Highway
    An Introduction to The Patent Prosecution Highway The Patent Prosecution Highway The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) is an agreement between the Intellectual Property Office and other national intellectual property offices which offers you a means of greatly reducing the time and expense associated with obtaining patent protection abroad. Under the PPH the pendency period for the first examination relating to PPH applications has been seen to be reduced from 27 months to less than 3 months1 at some participating offices. An astonishing 95% grant rate2 for PPH applications has been achieved at some national offices, with more than 20% of PPH applications going to grant with just one action3. 1 Figures are for PPH request to JPO based on USPTO as office of first filing 2 Based on figures of PPH between USPTO and JPO 3 Figures are for PPH request at USPTO based on JPO as office of first filing The PPH procedure itself is free in the UK and results in a potential reduction in the number of office actions which are needed to put your application in order for grant thereby reducing the costs of attorney’s fees which arise from responding to each office action. The PPH provides rapid, high quality patent protection at low cost. The Intellectual Property Office currently has pilot PPH agreements in place with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) and, from the 1st October 2009, the Korean Intellectual property Office (KIPO). The Patent Prosecution Highway Process The PPH supports you in your efforts to quickly obtain cost effective, robust patent protection for your products around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Japan Patent Office (Jpo) As Designated (Or Elected) Office
    JP PCT Applicant’s Guide – National Phase – National Chapter – JP Page 1 JAPAN PATENT OFFICE (JPO) AS DESIGNATED (OR ELECTED) OFFICE CONTENTS THE ENTRY INTO THE NATIONAL PHASE — SUMMARY THE PROCEDURE IN THE NATIONAL PHASE ANNEXES Fees ................................................................... Annex JP.I Form No. 53: Transmittal form (related to PR Rule 38-4) ........................... Annex JP.II Form No. 52: Submission of a translation of an amendment under Article 19 (related to PR Rule 38-2) ............................ Annex JP.III Form No. 54: Submission of a translation of an amendment under Article 34 (related to PR Rule 38-6) ............................ Annex JP.IV Form No. 44: Request for examination of application (related to PR Rule 31-2) ........... Annex JP.V Form No. 55: Request for review (related to PR Rule 38-8) .......................... Annex JP.VI Power of attorney ......................................................... Annex JP.VII List of abbreviations: Office: Japan Patent Office (JPO) DA: Design Act of Japan PA: Patent Act of Japan PR: Patent Regulations under the Patent Act of Japan UMA: Utility Model Act of Japan Art.: Article (26 March 2020) JP PCT Applicant’s Guide – National Phase – National Chapter – JP Page 3 SUMMARY Designated SUMMARY (or elected) Office JP JAPAN PATENT OFFICE (JPO) JP Summary of requirements for entry into the national phase Time limits applicable for entry into the Under PCT Article 22(1): 30 months from the priority date national phase: Under PCT Article 39(1)(a): 30 months
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Licensing Negotiations Involving Standard Essential Patents
    Directors President Henry Hadad Brett Alten Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Ronald A. Antush Vice President Nokia USA Inc. Daniel J. Staudt Estelle Bakun Siemens Exxon Mobil Corp. Scott Barker Treasurer Micron Technology, Inc. Karen Cochran Edward Blocker Shell International B.V. Koninklijke Philips N.V. Amelia Buharin Intellectual Ventures 10 April 2018 Management, LLC John Cheek Tenneco Inc. John Conway Legislative Affairs Office Sanofi William J. Coughlin General Coordination Division Ford Global Technologies LLC Robert DeBerardine Policy Planning and Coordination Department Johnson & Johnson Buckmaster de Wolf Japan Patent Office General Electric Co. Anthony DiBartolomeo 3-4-3 Kasumigaseki SAP AG Daniel Enebo Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100-8915, Japan Cargill, Incorporated Louis Foreman Enventys Scott M. Frank Sent Via Email to: [email protected] AT&T Darryl P. Frickey Dow Chemical Co. Gary C. Ganzi Re: JPO SEP Guide Comments Evoqua Water Technologies LLC Tanuja Garde Raytheon Co. Dear Japan Patent Office: Krish Gupta Dell Technologies Heath Hoglund Dolby Laboratories Intellectual Property Owners Association (“IPO”) appreciates the opportunity to provide Thomas R. Kingsbury Bridgestone Americas comments in response to the Japan Patent Office’s (“JPO”) proposed Guide to Licensing Holding Co. William Krovatin Negotiations Involving Standard Essential Patents (the “Guide”). We commend JPO Merck & Co., Inc. Michael C. Lee for its efforts and its attempts to reflect different viewpoints. We also note that IPO Google Inc. Peter Lee takes no position on aspects of the Guide not specifically referenced here. Thermo Fisher Scientific Elizabeth Ann Lester Equifax Inc. Timothy Loomis IPO is an international trade association representing companies and individuals in all Qualcomm, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
    U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Fiscal Year 2022 Congressional Justification May 2021 This Page is Intentionally Left Blank DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 2022 Congressional Justification Table of Contents Exhibit Number Exhibit Page Number 2 Organization Chart USPTO - 4 3 Executive Summary USPTO - 5 Patent and Trademark Businesses: Five-Year Horizon 3T Transfer Change Detail by Object Class USPTO - 19 4A Program Increases / Decreases / Terminations USPTO - 20 4T Transfer Summary Table USPTO - 22 5 Summary of Resource Requirements: Direct Obligations USPTO - 23 7 Summary of Financing USPTO - 25 8 Adjustments-to-Base USPTO - 26 Patent Program 10 Program and Performance: Direct Obligations USPTO - 28 12 Justification of Program and Performance (by Subactivity) USPTO - 29 13 Program Change for 2022 USPTO - 34 14 Program Change Personnel Detail USPTO - 35 15 Program Change Detail by Object Class USPTO - 41 Trademark Program 10 Program and Performance: Direct Obligations USPTO - 44 12 Justification of Program and Performance (by Subactivity) USPTO - 45 13 Program Change for 2022 USPTO - 50 14 Program Change Personnel Detail USPTO - 55 15 Program Change Detail by Object Class USPTO - 57 Intellectual Property Policy, Enforcement and Protection Program 10 Program and Performance: Direct Obligations USPTO - 60 12 Justification of Program and Performance (by Subactivity) USPTO - 61 Exhibit Number Exhibit Page Number 13 Program Change for 2022 USPTO - 65 14 Program Change Personnel
    [Show full text]
  • Japan Patent Office Outline
    Requirements for Description Japan Patent Office Outline I. Enablement Requirement II. Other Requirements 1 Outline I. Enablement Requirement II. Other Requirements 2 I. Enablement Requirement A. Basic Rule The patent system promotes protection of inventions by granting an exclusive right under predefined conditions for a predefined period of time to those who have developed and disclosed new technology. On the other hand, it gives the public an opportunity to gain access to the invention by disclosing technical details of the invention. The utilization of an invention as described above are promoted through the description which serves as the technical document. The description must meet the “Enablement requirement” so as to serve as the technical document. 3 I. Enablement Requirement PCT Article 5 The description shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. Read Carry Out A person skilled in the art: (PCT Guidelines 13.11) A hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art, who is aware of common general knowledge in the art at the relevant date, and has access to everything in the prior art. 4 I. Enablement Requirement Japanese Patent Act Article 36(4) The statement in the description must be so clear and sufficient that a person skilled in the art can carry out the claimed invention. Read Carry Out A person skilled in the art: (JPO Examination Guidelines II.1.1.1.) i. being capable of using ordinary technical means for research and development; and ii. being capable of exercising ordinary creativity 5 I.
    [Show full text]