DOCSLIB.ORG

Patent Litigation in Japan David W

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patent Litigation in Japan David W The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Intellectual Property Journal Akron Law Journals March 2016 Patent Litigation in Japan David W. Hill Shinichi Murata Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronintellectualproperty Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, International Law Commons, and the Litigation Commons Recommended Citation Hill, David W. and Murata, Shinichi (2007) "Patent Litigation in Japan," Akron Intellectual Property Journal: Vol. 1 : Iss. 2 , Article 1. Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronintellectualproperty/vol1/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Intellectual Property Journal by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Hill and Murata: Patent Litigation in Japan PATENT LITIGATION IN JAPAN David W. Hill*& Shinichi Murata** I. INTRODUCTION There are many differences between the U.S. and Japanese judicial systems. For example, Japan has no jury trial or thorough discovery sys- tem comparable to the system in the United States, and treble damages are not allowed in Japan. These judicial differences have been reflected in the patent litigations taking place in the two countries. In the past, many observers said that it took a very long time and was burdensome to enforce patent rights in Japan, and the amounts of damages awarded by Japanese courts were usually small. Recently, however, the situation has been rapidly changing in Ja- pan. The Patent Law and the Code of Civil Procedure have been amended several times.1 In addition, several meetings of the Strategy Council on Intellectual Property, formed directly by the Prime Minister, were held in 2002. The Council developed the Intellectual Property Pol- icy Outline in July 2002, which included reform of the patent litigation system. 2 The Council also introduced the Basic Law of Intellectual . Attorney at Law and Partner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA, 1977-present; B.S., Engineering, U.S. Military Academy, 1969; M.S. with honors, Business Administration, Boston University, 1974; J.D., George Washington University, 1977; LL.M. with highest honors in Patent & Trade Regulation Law, George Washington, University, 1981; Technical Advisor, U.S. Court of Customs & Patent Appeals, 1976-77; Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi (Licensed Foreign Lawyer), Japan, 1988-90. Attorney at Law (admitted in Japan and New York), Kaneko & lwamatsu, Tokyo, 1995-present; Trainee at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, 2001-2003; LL.B., The University of Tokyo, 1992; LL.M. in Intellectual Property Law, The George Washing- ton University, 2001. 1. TOKKYO HO [Patent law], Law No. 51 of 1998, Law No. 41 of 1999, Law No. 24 of 2002, Law No. 47 of 2003, Law No. 120 of 2004, Law No. 75 of 2005, Law No. 55 of 2006, and MINSOHO [Code of civil procedure], Law No. 109 of 1996, Law No. 108 of 2003, Law No. 120 of 2004. 2. STRATEGIC COUNCIL ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY OUTLINE (Jul. 3, 2002), http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/policy/titeki/kettei/O20703taikoue.html (English translation). Published by IdeaExchange@UAkron, 2007 1 Akron Intellectual Property Journal, Vol. 1 [2007], Iss. 2, Art. 1 AKRON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY JOURNAL [1:141 Property bill in October 2002, which was enacted in November of the same year. 3 Under this law, the Intellectual Property Policy Headquar- ters was established at the Cabinet level, and this Headquarters devel- oped "Strategic Programs for the Creation, Protection, and Exploitation of Intellectual Property" in July 2003. 4 The plan has been revised every year since that time. 5 The government's initiatives demonstrate that a strategy on intellectual property has become an important national con- cern for Japan. Japanese procedures have become faster, and the amount of dam- ages awarded by Japanese courts has been increasing. 6 Both trends sug- gest that Japanese patent litigation is becoming a more attractive way to resolve patent disputes. This article will explore how patent litigation in Japan has changed and will also compare and contrast aspects of patent litigation in the U.S. and Japan. In Part II, we show recent statistical data on Japanese patent- infringement litigation. Parts III and IV briefly review the Japanese ju- dicial system and legal professionals in the area of intellectual property. Part V addresses patent-infringement actions in Japan and the recent amendments of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Patent Law. Next, Parts VI and VII discuss infringement analysis and possible defenses in patent-infringement litigation. Part VIII reviews how to calculate the amount of damages in patent litigation in Japan. Finally, Part IX dis- cusses provisional injunctions in Japan. 3. BASIC LAW ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (LAW NO. 122 OF 2002), http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/policy/titeki/hourei/021204kihone.html (Provisional English Translation). 4. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY HEADQUARTERS, STRATEGIC PROGRAM FOR THE CREATION, PROTECTION AND EXPLOITATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (Jul. 8, 2003), http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/policy/titeki/kettei/030708f_e.htm 5. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY HEADQUARTERS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STRATEGIC PROGRAM 2004 (May 27, 2004), http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/policy/titeki/kettei/040527_e.html (English version of 2004 pro- gram); INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY HEADQUARTERS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STRATEGIC PROGRAM 2005 (Jun. 10, 2005), http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/policy/titeki/kettei/050610 e.pdf (English version of 2005 program); and INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY HEADQUARTERS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STRATEGIC PROGRAM 2006 (Jun. 8, 2006), http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/titeki2/keikaku2006_e.pdf (English version of 2006 program). 6. See infra notes 11-17 and accompanying text. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronintellectualproperty/vol1/iss2/1 2 Hill and Murata: Patent Litigation in Japan 2007] PATENT LITIGATION IN JAPAN II. RECENT TRENDS IN IP CASES A. Numbers of IP Cases Table 1: IP Cases Filed in Japan 7 Year Total Patent Design Trademark Copyright Unfair and Patent Competition, Utility etc. Model 1991 311 132 29 36 40 74 1992 413 149 24 45 66 129 1993 470 221 37 55 70 87 1994 497 204 26 53 72 142 1995 528 172 31 53 87 185 1996 590 234 28 80 85 163 1997 563 236 25 63 95 144 1998 559 214 22 77 113 133 7. The data of 1997 to 2005 are derived from the HOSO JIHO, vol. 50, No. 12; vol. 51, No. 12; vol. 52, No. 12; vol. 53, No. 12; vol. 54, No. 12; vol. 55, No. 12; vol. 56, No. 12; vol. 57, No. 12; and vol. 58, No.12. The data of 1991 to 1996 are derived from the Administrative office of the Supreme Court of Japan. Published by IdeaExchange@UAkron, 2007 3 Akron Intellectual Property Journal, Vol. 1 [2007], Iss. 2, Art. 1 AKRON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY JOURNAL [1:141 Table 1: IP Cases Filed in Japan (cont.) Year Total Patent Design Trademark Copyright Unfair and Patent Competition, Utility etc. Model 1999 642 263 32 65 117 165 2000 610 235 38 89 97 151 2001 554 187 29 67 127 144 2002 607 203 27 99 113 165 2003 635 216 27 106 113 173 2004 654 252 25 80 107 190 2005 579 209 28 90 96 156 Table 2: IP Suits Resolved in Japan (District Courts) 8 Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Number 386 471 457 402 440 442 549 596 Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 - Number 772 740 717 643 615 696 639 - 8. The data are derived from Distribution Material at the H6s6 jih6, vol. 53, No. 12; vol. 54, No. 12; vol. 55, No. 12; vol. 56, No. 12; vol. 57, No. 12; Third Meeting of Consultation Group on Intellectual Property Litigation, available at http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/sihou/kentoukai/titeki/dai3/3siryou5-1 .pdf and vol. 58, No. 12.Intellectual Property High Court's homepage, http://www.ip.courts.go.jp/aboutus/stat_03.html. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronintellectualproperty/vol1/iss2/1 4 Hill and Murata: Patent Litigation in Japan 2007] PATENT LITIGATION IN JAPAN Table 3: IP Provisional Injunctions Commenced and Resolved in Japan 9 Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Commenced 238 314 362 299 316 386 Resolved 273 323 350 302 299 355 Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 - Commenced 410 391 488 552 521 Resolved 379 426 563 530 578 - Table 4: IP Suits Commenced and Terminated in the U.S '0 Patent Trademark Copyright Commenced IP Suits 2,720 3,668 5,796 During Oct. 2004 - Sept. 2005 Terminated IP Suits 2,708 3,617 4,494 During Oct. 2004 - Sept. 2005 9. Judge Toshiaki limura, Changes to Intellectual PropertyLitigation in Japan, Prepared for the AIPLA IP Practice in Japan Committee Meeting (October 15, 2002) (data available in distribu- tion material entitled "Changes to Intellectual Property Ligitigation in Japan," which accompanied the presentation). Published by IdeaExchange@UAkron, 2007 5 Akron Intellectual Property Journal, Vol. 1 [2007], Iss. 2, Art. 1 AKRON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY JOURNAL [1:141 As shown in Tables 1 and 2, in 1991, the number of suits filed in Japanese District Courts relating to intellectual property equaled 311, with the number of decided cases relating to intellectual property total- ing 386 in 1991. By 2004, these totals had risen to 654 and 696 respec- tively, although they decreased to 579 and 639 in 2005.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Inter Partes Re-Examination: a Low Cost Alternative to Litigation in The
    Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Inter partes Re-examination: a Low Cost Alternative to Litigation in the US and Prosecution Strategies in View of the Historically Low Allowance Rate at the by USPTO Anthony C. Tridico, and Carlos M. Téllez Los Lunes de Patentes, Madrid, 30 November 2009 Disclaimer • These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. intellectual property law. These materials reflect only the personal views of the panelists, are not individualized legal advice, and do not reflect the views of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. It is understood that each case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., and the panelists cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., and the panelists. While every attempt was made to insure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed. 22 Outline • Re-exam as a low cost alternative to Litigation in the U.S. • Obviousness and KSR as major factors in rejection of applications • Strategies for dealing with KSR in various types of applications • General prosecution tips – If there is time – tips for avoiding inequitable conduct… 33 Monitoring and Detective Work • Time and money is spent monitoring your competitors.
    [Show full text]
  • Patenting Life in the European Community: the Proposed Directive on the Legal Protection for Biotechnological Inventions
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 4 Volume IV Number 2 Volume IV Book 2 Article 1 1993 Patenting Life in the European Community: The Proposed Directive on the Legal Protection for Biotechnological Inventions Janice McCoy Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Janice McCoy, Patenting Life in the European Community: The Proposed Directive on the Legal Protection for Biotechnological Inventions, 4 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 501 (1993). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol4/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Patenting Life in the European Community: The Proposed Directive on the Legal Protection for Biotechnological Inventions Janice McCoy' INTRODUCTION Technology has once again overtaken the law. Ever since the United States Supreme Court concluded in 1980 that anything un- der the sun that was made by man could be patented,' and especial- ly since the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") announced in 1987 that it considered nonnaturally occurring non- human animals to be patentable subject matter,2 legislative bodies in both the United States and the European Economic Community ("EEC") have been debating to what extent living matter should be patentable.
    [Show full text]
  • "Reasonably" Compensate Employee Invento Rs in Japan
    By Calvin GRIFFITH, MICHIRU Takahashi & Nobutaka KOMIyAMA bly" Compe ona nsat as e E "Re m o pl t o g ye n e i il In a v F e f n o t o s r l s l i a n f J t i a P p a e N h : T EMPLOYERS BEWARE The United States is generally considered a more litigious paying seven-figure sums in compensation for employee country than Japan, where customs traditionally favor a less inventions, having expected that the compensation provided confrontational approach to dispute resolution. But there is in the ordinary employment contract or internal employment one exception—employee invention lawsuits. A recent series regulations would be accepted by courts as reasonable. of lawsuits filed by aggrieved employee inventors against This stunning development in Japanese courts is based on their employer companies, demanding “reasonable remu- Japan’s unique employee invention system under Article neration” for the employees’ inventions, has brought atten- 35 of the Japan Patent Law, and foreign companies doing tion to this unique area of Japanese patent law—and raised business in Japan, especially those with R&D facilities there, concern in the business community. Japanese companies should be familiar with the provisions of Article 35 and the were shocked to find themselves facing the possibility of case law applying it. 14 orIgIn oF thE FUss—ArtIclE 35 AnD thE olyMPUs CasE be entitled to remuneration based on income from the pat- Article 35 of the Japan Patent law. Japan has a unique ents. Pursuant to those regulations, Olympus acquired a pat- employee invention system under Article 35 of the Patent ent on employee Tanaka’s invention.
    [Show full text]
  • Patents and the Public Domain: Improving Patent Quality Upon Reexamination
    Patents and the Public Domain: Improving Patent Quality Upon Reexamination Prepared by Policy Intern Raeanne Young [email protected] May 2008 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION eff.org Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................3 PATENTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN .....................................................................................................4 The Problem With Patent Quality ..................................................................................................4 Policy Rationale: Encouraging Innovation .......................................................................................4 PATENT REEXAMINATION ...................................................................................................................6 Ex parte and Inter partes .............................................................................................................6 OVERALL REEXAMINATION TRENDS ......................................................................................................8 Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data: July , 98 - December 3, 2007 ...............................................8 Inter Partes Reexamination Filing Data: November 29, 999 - December 3, 2007 .............................0 Comparison of Ex Parte and Inter Partes ......................................................................................0 PROMOTING FAIRNESS IN THE PATENT SYSTEM THROUGH REEXAMINATION .............................................2
    [Show full text]
  • The Benefits of Japanese Patent Law System Over Those of the US in the Pharmaceutical Area
    The Benefits of Japanese Patent Law System Over those of the US in the Pharmaceutical Area What can we do to maximize the benefits? William Han (GlaxoSmithKline) Japan Patent Attorneys Association International Activities Center 1 “Long Long Time Ago” • Poor Prosecution • Slow, Claim scope narrow if granted at all, claim types not sufficient • Weak Enforcement • Court proceedings took forever; Infringement/damages hard to prove; Damages minimal Regarding Enforcement: October 1994 – US Commissioner of Patents Bruce Lehman: “…the relative nonlitigiousness of Japanese society tends to minimize the importance of enforcement...US citizens holding Japanese patents should be able to rely on those patents more than their US patents…” Circa late 1990’s, JPO Commissioner Tekashi Isayama admitted: “The Japanese market is dishonorably regarded as ‘lenient towards infringement’. It is sometimes said that one may as well infringe whatever patents he likes in Japan, because court proceedings are slow and compensation insignificant” (taken from Mr Shusaku Yamamoto’s post) 2 • Aging population and attendant increase in healthcare cost, Japanese government started to aggressively promote the use of generic drug since 2007 • More numbers: • Sept 2016 – about 60% (by volume) • Japanese government wants to increase the use to 80% in fiscal year 2018-2020! • Patents are the only effective tools available to prevent the entry of generics 3 • Unlike in prior to 2007, opportunity cost of “not getting things right” in Japan could be enormous Comparison Between US v Japanese Patent Term Extension System • Both in Japan and US, if a drug undergoes clinical trial and review period, the patent which covers the drug can be extended up to 5 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Mode Disclosure for Patent Applications: an International and Comparative Perspective
    Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 16, September 2011, pp 409-417 Best Mode Disclosure for Patent Applications: An International and Comparative Perspective Bingbin Lu† Nanjing University Law School, No 22, Hankou Road, Nanjing, 210 093, China Received 13 June 2011, revised 13 July 2011 The best mode disclosure requirement helps to ensure that the public receives a full and honest disclosure in return for the grant of patent. It has a profound theoretical basis and foundation. The best mode disclosure requirement is an optional obligation under the TRIPS Agreement in its Article 29. Among the most important developed countries that have implemented this disclosure requirement are the US and Japan; however, there are certain differences in their national laws and practices, especially with regard to the legal effect of this requirement. In the US, patent reform is tending towards removing the best mode disclosure from the list of reasons to invalidate a granted patent; although, the requirement will still apply to all patent applications during patent prosecutions. Developing countries are recommended to consider adopting the best mode disclosure requirement in their patent laws. It is proposed that patent applicants be required to disclose the best mode which shall be a substantive condition for patent grant; however, the failure to disclose the best mode may not constitute a reason to invalidate a granted patent. The objective of this article is to study the best mode disclosure requirement from an international and comparative perspective, and suggest how developing countries should implement this disclosure requirement. The article also seeks to answer to two questions: whether a developing country should implement the best mode disclosure requirement, and if so, how to best implement it? Keywords: Patent, best mode, disclosure requirements, TRIPS Agreement Disclosure is one of the key issues in the patent requirement is the first paragraph of Section 112, Title system.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter?
    Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter? Christopher A. Cotropia Professor of Law University of Richmond School of Law Mark Lemley William H. Neukom Professor, Stanford Law School partner, Durie Tangri LLP. Bhaven Sampat1 Associate Professor, Mailman School of Public Health Columbia University 1 Corresponding author. 600 W 168th Street, New York, NY USA; [email protected]; Phone: 212-305- 7293 1 Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter? Abstract Patent law both imposes a duty on patent applicants to submit relevant prior art to the PTO and assumes that examiners use this information to determine an application's patentability. In this paper, we examine the validity of these assumptions by studying the use made of applicant-submitted prior art by delving into the actual prosecution process in over a thousand different cases. We find that patent examiners rarely use applicant-submitted art in their rejections to narrow patents, relying almost exclusively on prior art they find themselves. Our findings have implications for a number of important legal and policy disputes, including initiatives to improve patent quality and the strong presumption of validity the law grants issued patents—a presumption that makes patents more difficult to challenge in court. Keywords: Patents; citations; patent examination; bibliometrics Highlights: • Patent examiners rarely use applicant-submitted art to narrow claims before patents issue, relying almost exclusively on prior art they find themselves. • This is not simply because the applicants have drafted around the art they submitted. Nor does the explanation appear to be that applicant art is uniformly weak. • The findings have implications for a number of important legal and policy disputes, including initiatives to improve patent quality and the strong presumption of validity the law grants issued patents.
    [Show full text]
  • Issues of Patentability
    DIGITAL HEALTH ISSUES OF PATENTABILITY Recent changes in US patent law have made protecting and enforcing patents directed to digital healthcare inventions more challenging, as Marsha Gillentine and Michelle Holoubek of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explain. igital healthcare, the confluence of amount to “significantly more“ than the abstract medical and other biological fields idea, such that all uses in the abstract idea are not Dwith digital technology, is a vital part of pre-empted. patient treatment and healthcare management. Much of the confusion surrounding software- This article discusses five of the current top based claims is due to the first part of the test, intellectual property concerns for digital since there has been no guidance regarding how healthcare companies. to properly define an abstract idea. The Supreme Court explicitly declined to provide this guidance 1. Will the changes in US software in the Alice decision, and the federal circuit has WH[LU[SH^HќLJ[`V\Y07& not offered clear guidance on this point either. On June 19, 2014, the US Supreme Court issued What does this mean for patent applicants its decision in Alice Corp v CLS Bank, holding and owners? For starters, that a review of that computerised abstract patent ideas are not your existing IP may be needed to make sure patent-eligible. The post-Alice patent world has that no eligibility issues have arisen due to been filled with uncertainty and understandable the current (and retroactive) flux in the law. fears regarding the patent eligibility of software For new IP, additional details about specific patent claims. implementations, advantages that differentiate Digital healthcare companies have not your invention from the state of the art, and been spared this angst, since much of their examples may all be useful in mitigating innovation is protected by software patents eligibility challenges down the road.
    [Show full text]
  • Can I Challenge My Competitor's Patent?
    Check out Derek Fahey's new firm's website! CLICK HERE Can I Challenge My Competitor’s Patent? Yes, you can challenge a patent or patent publication. Before challenging a patent or patent publication, an analysis should be conducted by a registered patent attorney to determine if challenging a patent or patent publication is necessary, and to evaluate the legal grounds for challenging the patent or patent publication. As a registered patent attorney, I evaluate patents and patent applications to determine the risk of developing competing goods. Below are three important questions that must be answered by a registered patent attorney to evaluate the risk of competing against a patented good. 1. Does a particular good infringe on a patent? Typically, a registered patent attorney will conduct a “freedom to operate” opinion to determine if a business owner can commercialize a particular good without infringing on another’s patent. First, a patent attorney will determine if the patent is enforceable. Next, a patent attorney will perform an infringement analysis to determine if a particular good infringes on any of a patent’s claims. To perform an infringement analysis of a patent and a possibly infringing product, first, the patent’s scope must be analyzed. Second, the patent’s claim terms must be interrupted using the specification, prosecution history and extrinsic evidence to understand and construe the meaning of the claim terms. After the claim terms have been construed, then the elements of a particular good must be analyzed to determine if the particular good practices each and every claim element taught by a patent’s claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Finnegan Japan RT 07
    JAPAN ROUNDTABLE: Avoid invalidity risks in court IN ASSOCIATION WITH: 2007 JAPAN: ROUNDTABLE Many companies fear that initiating a patent infringement lawsuit in Japan is tantamount to inviting the courts to invalidate their rights. MIP and Finnegan Henderson jointly hosted a roundtable in Tokyo to consider inventive step, invalidity and successful litigation techniques in one of the world’s most important markets Avoid invalidity risks In association with: in court PO: What are the factors that make it difficult for plaintiffs to win still not brought to the court – that only happens at stage three. Of patent litigation in Japan? course, the defendant would want to avoid the risk of an injunc- NY: There are a lot of good reasons to file patent litigation in tion and therefore they will try their best to reach some kind of res- Japan. It is very, very fast, and injunctions are available. You could olution, so only those cases where such resolutions were not pos- even say it is easier than in the US. Also, judges are very experi- sible would be taken to court. enced. But the major concern that many companies have is that in AI: The viewpoint of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries on patents more than 80% of cases – of course you can dispute the statistics and, I suppose, of Japanese companies in general is that of course – but in more than 80% of cases the patentee loses, and I think if your technical development has a positive outcome you would when you have such a low success rate you will think twice before want to protect it.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Fixed Patent Terms Distort Innovation? Evidence from Cancer Clinical Trials
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES DO FIXED PATENT TERMS DISTORT INNOVATION? EVIDENCE FROM CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS Eric Budish Benjamin N. Roin Heidi Williams Working Paper 19430 http://www.nber.org/papers/w19430 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 September 2013 Financial support from NIA Grant Number T32-AG000186 to the NBER, NSF Grant Number 1151497, the Chicago Booth Initiative on Global Markets, the NBER Innovation Policy and the Economy program, and the Petrie-Flom Center at Harvard Law School is gratefully acknowledged. We thank Meru Bhanot, David Burk, Toby Chaiken, Brian Cordonnier, Greg Howard, Niels Joaquin, Megan McGrath, and Ana Medrano-Fernandez for excellent research assistance. Daron Acemoglu, David Autor, Raj Chetty, Joe Doyle, Dan Fetter, Amy Finkelstein, Ray Fisman, Alberto Galasso, Amanda Kowalski, Anup Malani, Matt Notowidigdo, Felix Oberholzer-Gee, Ariel Pakes, Al Roth, Jon Skinner, Alan Sorensen, Scott Stern, Glen Weyl, and seminar participants at BEA, Carnegie Mellon, the CBO, the Cornell Empirical Patent Law Conference, Georgia Tech, Harvard Law School, MIT, the NBER (Industrial Organization, Law and Economics, Productivity, and Public Economics), the Northwestern Kellogg Healthcare Markets conference, Toulouse, UC-Berkeley Haas, UIUC, UVA, Wellesley, and Yale Law School provided very helpful comments. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer- reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2013 by Eric Budish, Benjamin N.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Japanese Patent Prosecution
    The ‘Endless Loop’ of Japanese Patent Prosecution By Samson Helfgott and Paula E. Hopkins Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP First published in the May 2006 issue of World Intellectual Property Report Commentary The ‘Endless Loop’ of Japanese Patent Prosecution By Samson Helfgott and Paula E.Hopkins.Samson Helfgott During the course of the appeal trial, the Trial Examiners are is a Partner and Director of Patents, and Paula E. Hopkins is allowed to find a new reason and/or new prior art to reject the an associate in the IP Department of Katten Muchin patent application other than those stipulated in the decision of the Rosenman LLP, New York. The authors can be contacted examiner (Section 150, subsection 1 and Section 153, subsection by e-mail at: [email protected] and 1). In such case, the Board has to notify the new reason and/or [email protected] prior art to the applicant and allow the applicant to make counter-arguments against that reason and/or prior art before Patent prosecution in any patent system has its normal course of issuance of the decision of the Board (Section 159, subsection 2 delays. In significant cases, especially when broad claims are and Section 50). Accordingly, by way of example, although the being prosecuted, even more time may be required until a examiner may have only rejected the claim based upon certain resolution of the patent issues is reached. However, within the sections, such as lack of novelty, the Board of Trial Examiners can Japanese Patent System peculiarities within the law make such reject those claims for other reasons, such as indefiniteness, lack delays indefinite, resulting in an “endless loop” of prosecution of support, etc.
    [Show full text]