DOCSLIB.ORG

Netherlands Amending the Patents Act: Major Changes on the Horizon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Netherlands Amending the Patents Act: Major Changes on the Horizon Erik Nijs Nederlandsch Octrooibureau Netherlands Amending the Patents Act: major changes on the horizon Until 1995, the Netherlands Patent Office (NPO) granted In addition to the proposed amendments to the patents only after substantive examination, in which a Patents Act 1995, a new working agreement between the technical examiner assessed whether the invention EPO and the Netherlands entered into force in July 2006. claimed in the application was new and involved an As a result of the working agreement, the EPO continues inventive step. However, the success of the European to carry out prior art searches for Dutch patent patent system affected the number of national patent applications filed with the NPO. However, following the applications filed in the Netherlands. This number European and Patent Cooperation Treaty procedures, the decreased from over 12,500 in 1978, when the European search report is now accompanied by a written opinion Patent Office (EPO) opened, to fewer than 3,000 in 1990. on the question of whether the invention claimed in the It was predicted that the workload of the NPO would patent application is new and involves an inventive step become insufficient to maintain a staff of technical with respect to the prior art cited in the search report. examiners skilled in all fields of technology. As the Although the written opinion is not binding, it provides quality of substantive examination depends to a large a tool for assessing the validity of the patent, both for the extent on the knowledge and experience of the technical proprietor and for third parties. This increases legal examiners, the Netherlands decided to switch to a certainty. registration system for patents. In 1995 the NPO began to The most important changes in the Dutch patent grant patents without substantive examination; the system after the amended Patents Act has entered into patent is granted according to the application drafted by force will be as follows: the applicant no matter whether the claimed invention is patentable. After grant, it is up to the Dutch courts to • The six-year patent will be abolished; decide on the validity of the patent. • Patent applications in English will be accepted During 2005 and 2006 the Patents Act 1995 was (although the claims must still be in Dutch); reviewed (see Evaluatie 2006 Rijksoctrooiwet 1995, which • The first annual fee will be due after three years, can be downloaded in Dutch at www.minez.nl). The instead of after four years; general conclusion of the review was that the Dutch • The NPO will be more active in advisory proceedings registration system is a valuable supplement to the regarding the nullification of patents; and European patent system and provides a good balance of • The partial or full surrender of a patent will have speed, reasonable costs and legal certainty. However, the retroactive effect. review also revealed that there is a need for increased legal certainty, reduced costs and improved patent Abolition of the six-year patent awareness. Under the Patents Act 1995, an applicant can choose In July 2007 the Tweede Kamer (House of between a six-year and a 20-year patent. The term of the Representatives) of the Dutch Parliament approved a patent is 20 years if the applicant requests a search of proposal to amend the Patents Act. Before it can enter prior art, and six years if such a search is not requested. into force, the amended Patents Act requires the The six-year patent has been referred to as a utility approval of the Eerste Kamer (Senate) of the Dutch model similar to the German Gebrauchsmuster. However, Parliament. The amended act is expected to enter into this is not strictly correct because no utility model system force in the first half of 2008. exists in the Netherlands. The substantive requirements 152 Building and enforcing intellectual property value 2008 Nederlandsch Octrooibureau Netherlands (ie, novelty and inventive step), although not checked application. Under the Patents Act 1995, Dutch patent under the Dutch registration system, are identical for the applications must be filed in Dutch. If a Dutch applicant six-year and 20-year patents. files a subsequent patent application abroad claiming One key criticism which emerged from the review of priority from the Dutch patent application, a translation the Patents Act 1995 was that the six-year patent can lead is necessary. The Dutch text is usually translated into to unwanted legal uncertainty for both patent English. The new, relaxed language requirement aims to proprietors and third parties. As no search report by the reduce these translation costs. The Dutch Parliament NPO or the EPO is available for the six-year patent, expects that small and medium-sized companies will neither the patent proprietor nor third parties obtain particularly benefit from the reduction in translation information about novelty and inventive step in regard costs. As the claims of the application must still be to the six-year patent. As this is generally felt to cause too submitted in Dutch, legal certainty should be much uncertainty, the six-year patent will be abolished. safeguarded. Thus, under the amended Patents Act, a search will be The Netherlands will be one of the first countries in carried out for all patent applications. All patent Europe to depart from the national language applications will follow the existing procedure for requirement for national patents. Although the impact of obtaining a 20-year patent. If the patent application is a this step remains to be seen, the change could have major first filing, the search report should generally be implications for the number of Dutch applications filed available within nine months of filing the patent by foreign companies. Both Dutch and foreign applicants application. The search report is accompanied by a will benefit from the reduction in translation costs. If a written opinion, in which the European examiner foreign company already has the English text of a patent explains the relevance of the documents cited in the application, a full translation is not required; the search report. Approximately 18 months after the filing translation of the claims into Dutch will suffice to obtain date, the NPO will enter the application in the Patent a Dutch patent. Thus, the number of Dutch patents Register. The NPO will grant the 20-year patent as soon claiming priority from foreign filings could increase as the patent application has been entered in the register. substantially. If the patent application claims priority from another At the same time, Dutch companies will no longer be application, the search report may be received rather late. able to read Dutch patents in the Dutch language when In that case, the NPO grants the patent at least two they are trying to avoid infringing competitors’ patents. months after dispatch of the search report. This two- Although the claims, which will be in Dutch, determine month time limit relates to the applicant’s right to amend the scope of protection, infringement must also be the application after the search report and before grant. assessed using the description to interpret the claims. If the description is in English, a Dutch company which is Filing applications in English not proficient in the English language will need to The amended Patents Act will allow for the filing of translate the description into Dutch. The translation costs patent applications (except for the claims) in English. which the proprietor no longer has to pay for the Thus, the NPO will accept Dutch patent applications in description as it is filed in English will then fall to the English, provided that the claims are written or Dutch competitor to pay. Clearly, this will affect small translated into Dutch. and medium-sized companies rather than larger The provision that the language requirement is multinationals, which generally have better English irrelevant for obtaining a filing date remains unchanged. language skills. If a Dutch patent application is filed in a language other The liberalised language requirement in the amended than Dutch or English, a filing date will be accorded, but Patents Act is isolated from the London Agreement, the applicant must file a translation in Dutch or English which is expected to enter into force in the first half of shortly after filing (except for the claims, which must be 2008. The parties to the London Agreement will largely translated into Dutch). waive the requirement for translations of granted The motivation for this fundamental amendment can European patents to be filed in their national language. be found in the explanatory memorandum to the For states having one of the three EPO languages (ie, amended Patents Act: filing in English is allowed in English, French or German) as an official language, a order to reduce translation costs for Dutch applicants translation of the claims into their national language is when filing patent applications outside the Netherlands. already a condition for grant of the European patent and Dutch applicants often use the Dutch patent application there will be no further translation provisions. For other as the basis for an international or European patent states, the claims must still be translated into the national Building and enforcing intellectual property value 2008 153 Netherlands Nederlandsch Octrooibureau language and the text of the patent needs to be provided grounds for nullification apply to a particular registered in a specific EPO language – for example, the patent. Based on this advisory report, third parties may Netherlands requires an English text. The London gain an insight into the validity of the registered patent. Agreement can be downloaded at www.epo.org. A party instigating nullification proceedings before the Thus, the London Agreement will also force many Dutch courts will be admitted only if it has obtained such European companies to read European patents in a an advisory report.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The European Patent Convention, 3 Md
    Maryland Journal of International Law Volume 3 | Issue 2 Article 10 The urE opean Patent Convention Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil Part of the International Law Commons, and the International Trade Commons Recommended Citation The European Patent Convention, 3 Md. J. Int'l L. 408 (1978). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil/vol3/iss2/10 This Notes & Comments is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION The European Patent Convention' (EPC) is an attempt to simplify European patent law. The Convention provides a procedure for securing a single, European patent,2 which has the effect of a national patent in the signatory nations designated in the application. Through this alternative to national procedures, widespread patent coverage should be easier to obtain. Require- patent, however, are rigorous and its ments for a European 3 attraction is primarily the consolidation of the grant procedures. The EPC establishes several organs to handle the various aspects of the patent application procedure. The European Patent Office (EPO), located in Munich, is the international equivalent of a national patent office. Its administrative divisions are the General Search Division, the Examining Division, and the Opposition Division. The Receiving Section is at The Hague. The first procedural step is the filing of an application at either a national patent office or directly with the EPO.4 The application may be in any of the three official languages (English, French, or German) and the applicant's choice becomes the language of the proceedings.5 The Receiving Section subjects the application to both a preliminary6 and a supplementary formal examination to determine whether it is in proper form and all fees are paid.
    [Show full text]
  • PCT Applicant's Guide – National Phase
    DE PCT Applicant’s Guide – National Phase – National Chapter – DE Page 1 GERMAN PATENT AND TRADE MARK OFFICE (DEUTSCHES PATENT- UND MARKENAMT) AS DESIGNATED (OR ELECTED) OFFICE CONTENTS THE ENTRY INTO THE NATIONAL PHASE—SUMMARY THE PROCEDURE IN THE NATIONAL PHASE ANNEXES Fees ............................................................... Annex DE.I National processing request form (patents) .................................. Annex DE.II National processing request form (utility models) .............................. Annex DE.III Declaration concerning the inventor ....................................... Annex DE.IV List of abbreviations: Office: German Patent and Trade Mark Office PatG: Patent Act [Patentgesetz] GebrMG: Utility Model Act [Gebrauchsmustergesetz] IntPatÜbkG: Act on International Patent Conventions [Gesetz über internationale Patentübereinkommen] PatKostG: Patent Costs Act [Patentkostengesetz] PatKostZV: Ordinance on Payment of Patent Costs of the German Patent and Trade Mark Office and the Federal Patent Court [Patentkostenzahlungsverordnung] DPMAV: Ordinance concerning the German Patent and Trade Mark Office [Verordnung über das Deutsche Patent- und Markenamt] (25 March 2021) DE PCT Applicant’s Guide – National Phase – National Chapter – DE Page 3 SUMMARY Designated SUMMARY (or elected) Office DE GERMAN PATENT AND DE TRADE MARK OFFICE 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
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office
    GUIDELINES FOR EXAMINATION IN THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE Published by the European Patent Office Published by the European Patent Office Directorate Patent Law 5.2.1 D-80298 Munich Tel.: (+49-89) 2399-4512 Fax: (+49-89) 2399-4465 Printed by: European Patent Office, Munich Printed in Germany © European Patent Office ISBN 3-89605-074-5 a LIST OF CONTENTS page General Part Contents a 1. Preliminary remarks 1 2. Explanatory notes 1 2.1 Overview 1 2.2 Abbreviations 2 3. General remarks 3 4. Work at the EPO 3 5. Survey of the processing of applications and patents at the EPO 4 6. Contracting States to the EPC 5 7. Extension to states not party to the EPC 5 Part A – Guidelines for Formalities Examination Contents a Chapter I Introduction I-1 Chapter II Filing of applications and examination on filing II-1 Chapter III Examination of formal requirements III-1 – Annex List of Contracting States to the Paris Convention (see III, 6.2) III-20 Chapter IV Special provisions IV-1 Chapter V Communicating the formalities report; amendment of application; correction of errors V-1 Chapter VI Publication of application; request for examination and transmission of the dossier to Examining Division VI-1 Chapter VII Applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) before the EPO acting as a designated or elected Office VII-1 Chapter VIII Languages VIII-1 Chapter IX Common provisions IX-1 Chapter X Drawings X-1 Chapter XI Fees XI-1 Chapter XII Inspection of files; communication of information contained in files; consultation of the Register of European
    [Show full text]
  • How Valid Are U.S. Criticisms of the Japanese Patent System Michael Todd Helfand
    Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 15 | Number 1 Article 4 1-1-1992 How Valid Are U.S. Criticisms of the Japanese Patent System Michael Todd Helfand Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_comm_ent_law_journal Part of the Communications Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael Todd Helfand, How Valid Are U.S. Criticisms of the Japanese Patent System, 15 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 123 (1992). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_comm_ent_law_journal/vol15/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. How Valid Are U.S. Criticisms of the Japanese Patent System? by MICHAEL TODD HELFAND* Table of Contents I. An Overview of the Japanese Patent System ............... 125 A. Japanese Patent Office Patent Practice ................. 126 B. A Comparison of Relevant Statistics ................... 132 II. Japanese Conceptions of the Japanese Patent System ....... 133 III. An Introduction to U.S. Criticisms and Their Analysis .... 138 IV. Getting Behind U.S. Criticisms of Japanese Procedure ..... 139 A. Costs of Using the System-An Issue of Language ..... 139 B. JPO Overload and Time Delays ....................... 142 1. Comprehensive Measures to Improve Overload and D elays ............................................ 143 a. Increase the number of patent examiners in the JPO ................................ 143 b. Employment of experts to assist examiners ...... 144 c.
    [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]
  • I. Background
    Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program between the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the European Patent Office based on Patent Cooperation Treaty Work Products I. Background The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the European Patent Office (EPO) began a Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program on September 29, 2008. The pilot program was extended on September 30, 2009, for one year until September 30, 20IO. See "Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program between the United States Patent and Trademark Office and European Patent Office," published on October 21, 2008, at 1335 00 196 and "Continuation of the Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program between the USPTO and EPO," published on October 20,2009, at 1347 00 170. Under this prior PPH pilot program, an applicant receiving a determination from the EPO that at least one claim in a European application is allowable/patentablemay request that a corresponding application filed in the USPTO be accorded special status and be advanced out ofturn for examination. This prior PPH pilot program was limited to the utilization of search and examination results of national applications between cross filings under the Paris Convention. At the November 2009 Trilateral Conference, as part of a Trilateral effort, the Trilateral Offices (USPTO, EPO and the Japan Patent Office (JPO)) agreed to launch a new PPH pilot program based on Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) work products (PCT-PPH pilot program). The PCT-PPH pilot program will greatly expand the potential of the PPH program. This notice sets forth the requirements and details for the PCT-PPH pilot program between the USPTO and the EPO.
    [Show full text]
  • Accessing Databases at EPO European Patent Register and Espacenet
    Accessing Databases at EPO European Patent Register and Espacenet Nicolas Wyplosz November 2013 Learning objective How can national offices get and use publicly available information from EPO? - find a patent application filed at EPO (Euro-PCT and Euro-PCT-bis) - find a search report : ESR or ISR - find a written communication : ESOP or IPRP (WO-ISA / IPER) - find patent documents from over 90 National patent offices - find an automated translation of a patent document - check CPC classification Looking for EPO products EP applications: filed under the EPC - ESR : European Search Report - ESOP : European Search Opinion Euro-PCT: filed under the PCT with EPO as ISA - ISR and IPRP (WO-ISA / IPER) - ISR takes the place of the ESR - ESOP Euro-PCT-bis: filed under the PCT, EPO was not the ISA - supplementary ESR - ESOP Access EPO databases: http://www.epo.org Publicly available information EPO free online services EP register Espacenet European Patent Register European Patent Register http://www.epo.org/register "The EP Patent Register contains all the publicly available information on European patent applications as they pass through the grant procedure, including oppositions, patent attorney/EPO correspondence and more. The service provides for public file inspection ". • Find European patent applications : EP direct, Euro-PCT, Euro-PCT- bis • Check the current status of a European patent application • Read official communications between Examiner and the Applicant • Download data European Patent Register How do I enter a query? European Patent Register How do I enter a query? In ternationally agreed numbers for the Id entification European Patent Register How do I enter a query? remove 0 PCT application number PCT/EP2004/051505 = WO2004EP51505 PCT publication number WO 2006/505376 = WO2006505376 EPO application number EP04766233 = EP20040766233 EPO publication number EP1789988 Applicant Agilent Technologies, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of European Patent Prosecution
    Overview of European Patent Prosecution Under the European patent system, administered by the European Patent Office (EPO), a single patent application is examined and granted but can then be brought into force in a large number of European states including all current members of the EU and some other countries such as Switzerland and Turkey. It represents a convenient way of obtaining Europe-wide patent protection for an invention that is usually less expensive than prosecuting separate applications in individual European countries. What is a European patent? Filing A European patent is a patent granted by the European A European patent application is filed with the EPO Patent Office (EPO) on an application which it has at one of its branches in Munich, the Hague or Berlin. examined and decided that meets the requirements of It can either be filed within 12 months of an earlier the European Patent Convention (EPC: the patent law national application by claiming priority from the earlier that applies to the EPO). The European patent can then application or within 31 months of that priority as a be brought into force into some or all of the Contracting regional phase of a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) States of the EPC as well as some further countries which application. are not members of the EPC but allow applicants for a More details on claiming priority European patent to extend the patent to that state; the so-called Extension States. In some respects, a European A European patent application must be prosecuted in one patent can be considered to be a bundle of national of the official languages of the EPO (English, French or patents with each member of that bundle capable of German).
    [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]
  • European Patent Procedure Explained
    European Patent Procedure Explained Patents in Europe When protecting an invention in Europe, you can either file a single European patent application covering 40 member states, or you can file individual national patent applications in each separate European state where you require patent protection. In general, if you require patent protection in more than a single national European state, it is likely to be more cost effective to file a European patent application under the European Patent Convention. European patent applications can take quite a long time to process. The average prosecution from filing to a decision on grant is around 44 months. Prosecution can be quicker in some individual national states. This is particularly true in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Additionally, short term patents (known as petty patents, or utility models), where there is generally a novelty requirement and either no inventive step requirement, or a lower level of inventive step requirement than for a European patent or a standard national patent, are available in some European states, for example Germany and Italy. These may have a cost or speed advantage over a standard national patent, or a European patent. However, for most inventions originating outside Europe, the European patent under the European Patent Convention, is the primary form of protection. European Patent - Overall Procedure From filing to grant, the stages are: - Filing the application: A full description, claims, abstract and where appropriate drawings, must be supplied at the point of filing. An application fee and search fee are also due on filing. The application can be filed in any official language of a member state, but a translation into English, French or German, the three official languages of the European Patent Convention, must be supplied shortly after filing.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Prosecution Highways: Accelerating the Patent Examination Process
    May 2010 COMMENTARYJONES DAY Patent Prosecution Highways: Accelerating ThE Patent Examination Process What Is A Patent Prosecution Which Are ThE MOsT Important Highway? Patent Prosecution Highways? To speed up the patent examination process, a set of To date, Patent Highways as pilot programs connect Patent Prosecution Highways (“PPH” or “Patent High- the world’s most relevant patent offices. Of the mul- ways”) has been launched in the recent past. These titude of existing Patent Highways, the Patent High- Patent Highways have been established between ways between the European Patent Office (“EPO”) national and regional patent offices all around the and the United States Patent and Trademark Office world, most of them as two-way highways between (“USPTO”) as well as the Japan Patent Office (“JPO”) one patent office and another, to share information could turn out to be the most important patent high- relating to the examination process, and to permit ways in the near future. These highways could be an each participating patent office to benefit from the effective mechanism to obtain patents in the major work already done by the other. The aim of the Pat- economic regions in a much shorter time than using ent Highways is to improve patent quality and reduce the established procedures. the examination workload through faster procedures. Therefore, an applicant whose claims are determined On January 29, 2010, a Patent Cooperation Treaty/ to be patentable by the patent office of first filing and Patent Prosecution Highway (“PCT/PPH”) pilot pro- who has filed a corresponding application with a par- gram was established for a two-year period.
    [Show full text]
  • Japanese Patent Law and the WIPO Patent Law Harmonization Treaty: a Comparative Analysis
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 4 Volume IV Number 3 Volume IV Book 3 Article 5 1994 Japanese Patent Law and the WIPO Patent Law Harmonization Treaty: A Comparative Analysis Mark S. Cohen Cooper & Dunham 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 Mark S. Cohen, Japanese Patent Law and the WIPO Patent Law Harmonization Treaty: A Comparative Analysis, 4 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 847 (1994). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol4/iss3/5 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]. Japanese Patent Law and the WIPO Patent Law Harmonization Treaty: A Comparative Analysis Cover Page Footnote The author is grateful for the guidance and support of William T. Fryer, III, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law, Baltimore, Md. The author also wishes to acknowledge Yoichiro Yamaguchi, Esq., Beveridge, DeGrandi, Weilacher & Young, Washington, D.C., for his comments on this Article. This article is available in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol4/iss3/5 ARTICLE Japanese Patent Law and the WIPO Patent Law Harmonization Treaty: A Comparative Analysis Mark S.
    [Show full text]