DOCSLIB.ORG

Dominating Global Intellectual Property: Overview of Patentability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dominating Global Intellectual Property: Overview of Patentability Thomas J. Kowalski Dominating global intellectual is a partner in the New York office of Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP. property: Overview of Antonio Maschio, PhD is a partner in the patentability in the USA, Southampton, UK, office of D. Young & Co. Samuel H. Megerditchian Europe and Japan is an associate in the New York Thomas J. Kowalski, Antonio Maschio and Samuel H. Megerditchian office of Frommer Lawrence & Date received (in revised form): 17th March, 2003 Haug LLP. Abstract The USA, Europe and Japan dominate intellectual property. The patent offices of these three economies issue the vast majority of the world’s patents and harmonisation has been a key initiative in recent years. Corporate and academic leaders, inventors and practitioners should be aware of the examination practices in all three patent offices. The opinions expressed herein are the personal opinions of the authors, and are not to be considered the opinions of Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP, D. Young & Co. or any of the firms’ Keywords: USPTO, EPO, JPO, patents, harmonisation, clients. Further, nothing in this paper is to be construed as legal advice, a substitute for legal patentability, trilateral advice, or as positions/strategies etc taken/employed in, or suitable for, any particular case or set of initiative facts. It is unquestionable that the USA, Europe technologies in the pharmaceutical or and Japan dominate the intellectual biotechnology sectors. property (IP) landscape. Indeed, statistics Therefore, the public has a vested show that the patent offices of these pillars interest in understanding the examination (the United States Patent and Trademark practices of all three patent offices. And Office (USPTO), the European Patent although the three systems essentially Office (EPO) and the Japan Patent Office share the same basic rules for patentability, (JPO), respectively) issue nearly 90 per both substantive and procedural cent of the world’s patents.1 differences exist. It is the appreciation of It is not coincidental, however, that the these systems that will enable applicants patent offices of the three most powerful and practitioners to wisely prosecute global economies issue the most patents. patent applications. The consensus among corporate, academic and political leaders throughout OVERVIEW OF the USA, Europe and Japan has long been PATENTABILITY IN THE that IP is an extraordinarily valuable asset: USPTO, EPO AND JPO one that not only significantly affects The dominant policy objective of patent revenue, but also directly influences law, whether in the USA, Europe or shareholder value and academic prestige. Japan, is the balancing of two conflicting Thomas Kowalski Additionally, since a patent is an equitable interests: rewarding an inventor Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP, enforceable privilege of limited duration, by granting patent exclusivity while, New York Office, the corporate and academic elite readily simultaneously, stimulating competition 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10151, USA understands that a well-prosecuted patent in the art in which the patent monopoly portfolio affords considerable strategic falls. The exclusivity enjoyed by the Tel: +1 212 588 0800 Fax: +1 212 588 0500 leverage in the marketplace, especially if patentee acts as a shield against the E-mail: tkowalski@flhlaw.com the patents are directed to pioneering unauthorised making, using or selling of & HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1478-565X. JOURNAL OF COMMERCIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY. VOL 9. NO 4. 305–331. JUNE 2003 3 0 5 Kowalski, Maschio and Megerditchian the patented invention for a fixed period The drawings of the design patent of time. Competition, on the other hand, constitute the disclosure. All design is stimulated in two ways: first, by limiting patents have only a single claim which this exclusivity to the four corners of the refers to the drawing. Design patents must patent and, second, by limiting the life of satisfy the statutory requirements of the patent to that fixed term. patentability (35 USC }}112, 102 and In the USA, the USPTO is the 103) and may also be subject to government agency responsible for restriction. The term of a design patent is examining patent applications and issuing 14 years from issue. patents. A patent for an invention is the Plant patents may be granted to anyone grant of a property right to the inventor. who invents or discovers any distinct and The property right is personal, in that the new variety of plants. The plant must be patent can be sold, mortgaged, invented or discovered in a cultivated bequeathed to an heir or assigned from state and asexually reproduced. one owner to another. The right The USA follows the ‘first-to-invent’ conferred by the patent to the owner is system, whereby a patent is awarded to the right to exclude others from making, the first person to invent the subject using, offering for sale, or selling the matter of the patent application. Europe invention in the USA or importing the and Japan, however, follow the ‘first-to- invention into the USA. More file’ system. There, a patent is awarded to specifically, what is granted is not the right the first person to file an application to to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import the patent office, even if the filer is not by the patent owner, but rather the right the first inventor. to exclude others from making, using, The USPTO, EPO and JPO, however, offering for sale, selling or importing the essentially follow similar statutory patent owner’s invention. Once a patent requirements for patentability. To be is issued, the patentee must enforce the patentable, a claim must recite patentable patent without aid of the USPTO. subject matter; be useful; adequately Generally, the term of a new patent is described and enabled in the specification; 20 years from the date on which the clear; and free from the prior art (ie novel application for the patent was filed in the and non-obvious). These requirements USA or, in special cases, from the date an are represented in Table 1. earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance Patentable subject matter/ fees. US patents are effective only within statutory invention Patentable subject the USA, its territories, and its In the USA, patentable subject is based on matter possessions. Section 101 of Title 35 of the US Code as Types of US patents There are generally three types of US interpreted by the Federal courts. patents: utility, design and plant. Utility According to Section 101: ‘To be patents may be granted to anyone who considered patent eligible subject matter invents or discovers any new and useful under 35 U.S.C. }101, the claimed process, machine, article of manufacture, invention must be a process, machine, or compositions of matter, or any new manufacture, or composition of matter useful improvement thereof. A utility that has a practical utility.’ patent covers the way something ‘works’: Thus, subject matter worthy of a patent an apparatus, machine, composition, etc. includes, for example: A design patent, by contrast, protects the exterior appearance of an article of • processes (utility patent); manufacture, ie the way an invention ‘looks’. A picture, a print or an • apparatus (utility patent); impression, however, are not articles of manufacture and, therefore, unpatentable. • articles of manufacture (utility patent); 306 & HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1478-565X. JOURNAL OF COMMERCIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY. VOL 9. NO 4. 305–331. JUNE 2003 Dominating global intellectual property Table 1: Applicable sections/articles of respective patent laws Patentable subject matter/ Industrial applicability/ Enablement/support/ Novelty/inventive step/ statutory invention utility sufficiency/written non-obviousness description and clarity USPTO 35 USC }101 35 USC }101 35 USC }112, first and second 35 USC }}102,103 paragraphs EPO EPC Art. 52 EPC Art. 57 EPC Arts. 83, 84 EPC Arts 54,56 JPO JPL }2(1) JPL }29 (1) JPL }36 (4) (6) JPL }29(1)(2) Japanese Patent Law • compositions of matter (utility Japanese Patent Law Sect. 2(1): patent); Definition of Invention (Guidelines Part II,Chap.1, 1.) Patent • new uses of known processes (utility Law Section 2(1) defines a statutory patent); invention as a highly advanced creation of technical ideas utilizing a • ornamental, non-functional designs law of nature. for articles of manufacture (design patent); Utility/industrial applicability • asexually produced plants (plant 35 USC }101 is the statutory basis for the patent); utility requirement in the USPTO: • biotechnological inventions: eg stem To comply with 35 U.S.C. }101, the cells (utility patent). claimed invention must have at least one specific, substantial, and credible utility that is either asserted in the In the EPO, Article 52 of the EPC specification or is well-established. controls on the issue of patentable subject An invention must be useful, eg it must matter: solve a problem. Indeed, according to the EPC EPC Art.52(1): Supreme Court, ‘a patent is not a hunting European patents shall be granted for license. It is not a reward for the search, any inventions which are susceptible of but compensation for its successful industrial application, which are new conclusion.’2 Although mechanical and and which involve an inventive step. electrical inventions readily satisfy the requirement, pharmaceutical and EPC Art.52(2): biotechnological inventions may pose The following shall not be regarded as difficulties. inventions within the meaning of The requirements for utility and paragraph 1: enablement are closely related. According (a) discoveries, scientific theories and to In re Swartz,3 where the Federal Circuit mathematical methods; held that a claim to cold fusion failed both (b) aesthetic creations; the utility and enablement requirements, (c) schemes, rules and methods for the court explained: performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for ‘The question of whether a computers; specification provides an enabling (d) presentations of information. disclosure under Section 112, paragraph 1, and whether an In Japan, the JPO defines patentable application satisfies the utility subject matter as follows: requirement of Section 101 are closely & HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1478-565X.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "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]
  • 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 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]
  • Chapter 1 Eligibility for Patent and Industrial Applicability (Main Paragraph of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act)
    Note: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shall prevail. Part III Chapter 1 Eligibility for Patent and Industrial Applicability Chapter 1 Eligibility for Patent and Industrial Applicability (Main Paragraph of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act) 1. Overview The main paragraph of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act defines that any person who has made an invention which is industrially applicable may obtain a patent therefor. Article 2(1) of the Patent Act defines "invention" as "the highly advanced creation of technical ideas utilizing the laws of nature". An invention which does not comply with this definition shall not be patented. An invention for which a patent is sought shall be industrially applicable even if the patent complies with this definition, since the purpose of the Patent Act is the development of industry (Article 1). The main paragraph of Article 29(1) of the Patent Act provides the two following points as the patentability requirements: (i) A statutory "invention" (hereinafter, referred to as "eligibility for a patent" in this chapter) (see 2.) (ii) An "industrially applicable invention" (hereinafter, referred to as "industrial applicability" in this chapter) (see 3.) This chapter explains determination on eligibility for a patent and industrial applicability. In this chapter, an invention complying with the requirements of eligibility for a patent is referred to as a statutory "invention". The word "invention" in the expression "claimed invention" does not mean that the invention complies with the requirements of eligibility for a patent. 2. Determination on Requirements of Eligibility for Patent The subject of determination on the requirements of eligibility for a patent is a claimed invention.
    [Show full text]
  • The Success Of, and Response To, India's Law Against Patent Layering
    The Success of, and Response to, India’s Law against Patent Layering Rajarshi Banerjee. J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School, 2014 I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 2 II. THE DEBATE OVER PATENT LAYERING ...................................................... 5 A. An Introduction to Patent Layering ........................................................................ 5 B. Arguments for and against Patent Layering ........................................................... 6 III. THE GLOBAL PATENT PROTECTION LANDSCAPE ..................................... 9 A. The Emergence of TRIPS ........................................................................................ 9 B. Patent Protection under the International Investment Regime ............................. 12 C. Patent Protection under Other Agreements that Implicate Intellectual Property 15 D. Most-Favored-Nation Provisions in TRIPS and International Investment Agreements (IIAs) ......................................................................................................... 16 IV. THE CHALLENGE OF LIMITING PATENT LAYERING AMIDST THE GLOBAL PATENT PROTECTION LANDSCAPE ........................................................ 16 V. THE SUCCESS OF INDIA’S LAW AGAINST PATENT LAYERING ............ 17 A. An Introduction to India’s Law against Patent Layering ..................................... 18 B. How India’s Law Interacts with the Global Patent Protection Landscape .......... 21 1. Section
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Patent System and Procedure in Sri Lanka
    Overview of the Patent System and Procedure in Sri Lanka Outline n What is intellectual property? n Types of intellectual property n Evolution of the domestic system n International Arena n Why do intellectual property rights matter? n Patent system n Patenting Procedure n Patent CooperationTreaty 2 What is Intellectual Property (IP)? n IP is the term used for types of property that result from creations of human mind, the intellect. n IP is an asset and has a monetary value. n IP can be owned, transferred, sold or licensed. n A kind of intangible property and has no physical form. n IP is divided into two general categories n Industrial Property n Copyrights 3 Types of Intellectual Property n Industrial Property – assets created for the advancement of technology, industry and trade. n Patents n Trademarks n Industrial Designs n Geographical Indications n Copyrights and related rights – original expressions and “work of authorship” 4 Evolution of the domestic system n The first patent was granted on November 22, 1860 in Sri Lanka under the British Inventor’s Ordinance of 1859. n The Patents Ordinance of 1906 (based on the English Patent Law). n The English Law of Trademarks in 1888 under the Ordinance No. 14 of 1888. n The Design Ordinance in 1904. n The Copyright Ordinance No 12 of 1908 is the first copyright law in Sri Lanka. 5 Evolution of the domestic system n The Code of Intellectual Property Act N0.52 of 1979 – turning point in the evolution of IP law and administration in Sri Lanka. n New regime – The Intellectual Property Act, N0.36 of 2003 which provides the law relating to IP and for an efficient procedure for registration, control and administration.
    [Show full text]
  • February 25, 2015 Office of Policy and International Affairs Attention To: Ms. Soma Soha Mr. Edward Elliot United States Patent
    Lion Building 1233 20 th Street N.W., Ste. 501 Washington D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 955-3750 Fax: (202) 955-3751 Yoichiro Yamaguchi (202) 955-8788 [email protected] February 25, 2015 Office of Policy and International Affairs Attention to: Ms. Soma Soha Mr. Edward Elliot United States Patent and Trademark Office 600 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Re: Comments on International Issues Related to Privileged Communication between Patent Practitioners and Their Clients Dear Ms. Soha and Mr. Elliot: In response to the Request for Comments on International Issues Related to Privileged Communication between Patent Practitioners and Their Clients, published on January 26, 2015, at 80 Fed. Reg. 3953, I respectfully submit the following comments which are focussed on international issues only. Question 4. Explain how U.S. stakeholders would be impacted by a national standard for U.S. courts to recognize privilege communications with foreign patent practitioners, including potential benefits and costs. In a foreign country where no discovery in civil action is available, the national standard for U.S. courts to recognize privilege communications with a foreign patent practitioner in the foreign country has no impact, because there is no way for a civil court in the foreign country to require a party to force a testimony or to produce a document in that country concerning contents of a confidential communication. See Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals Inc. , 64 USPQ2d 1331 (DC S.D.N.Y. 2002) in connection with South Korea. In this context, the communications of the U.S. stakeholders with the foreign patent practitioners are privileged under the national standard for U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Will Increased Patent Infringement Damage Awards Revive the Japanese Economy?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 2 Re-Engineering Patent Law: The Challenge of New Technologies January 2000 Patent Infringement Damages in Japan and the United States: Will Increased Patent Infringement Damage Awards Revive the Japanese Economy? Toshiko Takenaka Center for Advanced Study and Research on Intellectual Property Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Toshiko Takenaka, Patent Infringement Damages in Japan and the United States: Will Increased Patent Infringement Damage Awards Revive the Japanese Economy?, 2 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 309 (2000), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol2/iss1/11 This International and Comparative Law Issues is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Patent Infringement Damages in Japan and the United States: Will Increased Patent Infringement Damage Awards Revive the Japanese Economy? Toshiko Takenaka, Ph.D.* INTRODUCTION Since the Japanese economy plunged into its current, deep
    [Show full text]
  • Novelty and Inventive Step
    1 NOVELTY AND INVENTIVE STEP Introduction If you wish to obtain a patent right in Japan, your claimed invention has to fulfill certain requirements as stipulated in the Japanese Patent Law. The major requirements include: - [Industrial Applicability] Claimed invention has to be industrially applicable (Japanese Patent Law, Article 29, Paragraph 1, Main Paragraph); - [Novelty] Claimed invention has not been publicly known in Japan or elsewhere (Japanese Patent Law Article 29, Paragraph 1 (and Article 29bis)); - [Inventive Step] Claimed invention could not have been easily conceived of (Japanese Patent Law, Article 29, Paragraph 2]; - [First-to-File System] Claimed invention has not been filed by third parties (Japanese Patent Law, Article 39 (and Article 29bis)) - [Description Requirements] Description of specification and recitation of claims have to satisfy certain description requirements (Japanese Patent Law, Article 36) In particular, reasons for rejection about novelty and inventive step are often listed in Office Actions, and they also become issues of contention at the court. NOVELTY The judgement regarding novelty is based on the timing of the filing of a patent application (international filing date for PCT- based applications, and priority date for Paris Convention-based applications). Please note that not only the date but also the exact time of filing a patent application is considered to be the subject for the judgement. Therefore, it is very important to conduct a thorough prior art search before filing a patent application. Inventions which lack novelty include: 1. Those publicly known in Japan or in overseas countries prior to filing (for example, TV broadcasting) 2. Those publicly worked in Japan or in overseas countries prior to filing (for example, in-store sales, factory tour) 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Substantial Identity Rule Under the Japanese Novelty Standard
    UCLA UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal Title The Substantial Identity Rule under the Japanese Novelty Standard Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xz0478c Journal UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal, 9(1-2) Author Takenaka, Toshiko Publication Date 1991 DOI 10.5070/P891-2021976 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California THE SUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY RULE UNDER THE JAPANESE NOVELTY STANDARD Toshiko Takenaka* I. INTRODUCTION Under both Japanese and United States patent law, to obtain a must satisfy the requirements of "novelty" ' and patent an invention' 2 "nonobviousness." Although the terms differ, it is commonly ac- cepted that the novelty and inventive step requirements3 under Jap- anese patent law correspond to the novelty and nonobviousness requirements under United States patent law. 4 However, it has been argued that the patentability standard is lower under Japanese law than under American law; as a result, Japanese companies have encroached on American inventions by obtaining patents for trivial improvements. At least one American company has strongly op- posed this practice in the Japanese patent system, emphasizing the threat of Japanese competition. 5 The patentability standard is closely related to a country's in- dustrial and economic policies, and to the protection of pioneer in- ventions and their improvements. In general, the patentability standards of developing countries tend to be lower than those of industrialized countries, so that improvements made by the domes- * Ph.D. candidate, University of Washington. The author thanks Professor Chisum, who suggested the Japanese novelty standard as a research topic and who gave valuable assistance. The author also thanks Professor Henderson, Professor Monya, Andrea Oakley, and Erik Utgaard for their helpful comments.
    [Show full text]