2011 Japanese Patent Law Revision AIPLA Annual Meeting October 21, 2011 Yoshi Inaba TMI Associates.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Managing Intellectual Property Assets in International Business Anil Sinha, Counsellor, SMEs Division World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
Advertisements

MELISSA ASFAHANI Patent Attorney El Paso, TX
By David W. Hill AIPLA Immediate Past President Partner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Overview of the America Invents Act.
Patent Law Overview. Outline Effect of patent protection Effect of patent protection Substantive requirements for patent protection Substantive requirements.
© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 1 America Invents Act (AIA) Implementation in 2012 Peter D. Sabido Intellectual Property Attorney Kolisch.
Update on USPTO Activities November 18, 2014 Drew Hirshfeld Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy 1.
Implementing First-Inventor-to-File Provisions of the AIA By: Scott D. Malpede, Seth Boeshore and Chitra Kalyanaraman USPTO Rules Effective March 16, 2013.
IP Protection in Thailand
© 2005 Morrison & Foerster LLP All Rights Reserved Offense as Defense in U.S. Patent Litigation Anthony L. Press Maximizing IP Seminar October 31, 2005.
1 1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association USPTO Updates Including Glossary Pilot Program Chris Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. IP Practice.
U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & ENGINEERING CENTER (ARDEC) Presented to: Federal Laboratory Consortium Northeast Region 25 Feb 2014 Mr. Tim.
BIPC.COM STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF POST ISSUANCE PATENTABILITY REVIEW: THE NEW, OLD, AND NO LONGER Presented By: Todd R. Walters, Esq. B UCHANAN, I NGERSOLL.
© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act: Changes to United States Patent Law and Practice Charles.
1 Remedies for True Owner of Right to Obtain Patent against Usurped Patent AIPLA MWI IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting Sunday, January 22, 2012.
HOW WILL THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT (AIA) CHANGE THE WAY WE PROTECT AMERICAN IMAGINEERING? Michael A. Guiliana April 24, 2012 Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel.
Building a Competitive Edge: Protecting Inventions by Utility Models and / or Patents : Case Studies By P. Kandiah KASS International Sdn.Bhd. KASS.
Applications for Intellectual Property International IP Protection IP Enforcement Protecting Software JEFFREY L. SNOW, PARTNER NATIONAL SBIR/STTR CONFERENCE.
The U.S. Patent System is Changing – A Summary of the New Patent Reform Law.
A Comparative Analysis of Patent Post-Grant Review Procedures in the U
1 AMERICA INVENTS ACT 報告人:林淑靜 學號: M A New Era ! This Act was signed into law by President Obama on September 16, 2011 and represents first.
Patent Litigation in Japan April 7, 2008 Presented by: David W. Hill Partner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
Impact of US AIA: What Really Changed? 1 © AIPLA 2015.
Practical Aspects of IP Arbitration: Improving the negotiating position Olav Jaeger September 14, 2009.
1 Patent Law in the Age of IoT The Landscape Has Shifted. Are You Prepared? 1 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq.
Patent Law Presented by: Walker & Mann, LLP Walker & Mann, LLP 9421 Haven Ave., Suite 200 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca Office.
1 LAW DIVISION PATENT DIVISION TRADEMARK & DESIGN DIVISION ACCOUNTING & AUDITING DIVISION YUASA AND HARA LAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association EMERGING TRENDS IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PRACTICE TOM ENGELLENNER Pepper Hamilton, LLP.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update regarding PCT and PPH at the USPTO Yuichi Watanabe Joint Meeting of AIPLA and.
Post-Grant & Inter Partes Review Procedures Presented to AIPPI, Italy February 10, 2012 By Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin & Szipl, P.C.
Yoshiki KITANO JPAA International Activities Center AIPLA Annual Meeting, 2014 IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting Seminar Post-Grant Opposition.
Post Grant Review to be introduced in Japan JPAA International Activities Center Fujiko Shibata January 29, 2013 AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute IP Practice.
1 ABE, IKUBO & KATAYAMA 1 Fordham Intellectual Property Law Institute 19 th Annual Conference Intellectual Property Law & Policy April 28-29, 2011 Eiji.
Grace Period System under AIA vs. Exception to Loss of Novelty in Japan JPAA International Activities Center Kazuhiro Yamaguchi January 29, 2013 AIPLA.
New Ex Parte Appeal Rules Patent and Trademark Practice Group Meeting January 26, 2012.
© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Post Grant Proceedings Before the USPTO and Litigation Strategies Under the AIA Panelists:David.
The New Tool for Patent Defendants - Inter Partes Review Daniel W. McDonald George C. Lewis, P.E. Merchant & Gould, P.C. April 16, 2014 © 2014 Merchant.
IP PRACTICE IN JAPAN PREMEETING AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute Las Vegas, NV January 22-23, 2012 Shigeyuki Nagaoka, JPAA.
The B.O.R. Process and The School District JILL THOMPSON, ATHENS COUNTY AUDITOR BOB DRAIN, TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC LISA ELIASON, ATHENS CITY LAW DIRECTOR.
1 Current Status on the Recovery of Patent Rights which Lapsed Due to Unpaid Fees Atsushi Aoki Seiwa Patent & Law October 21, 2015.
Chris Fildes FILDES & OUTLAND, P.C. IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting AIPLA Annual Meeting, October 20, 2015 USPTO PILOT PROGRAMS 1 © AIPLA 2015.
Supreme Court Decision on Enforceability of a US Court Decision Dr. Shoichi Okuyama AIPPI Japan AIPLA Pre-meeting on October 22, 2014.
1 Report of Patents Committee Meeting October 19, 2010 Kenji Asai Co-chair of the Patents Committee.
Takeo Nasu JPAA International Activities Center AIPLA 2015 Mid-Winter Institute IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting Seminar Updates of Post Grant.
Oppositions, Appeals and Oral Proceedings at the EPO Michael Williams.
Welcome and Thank You © Gordon & Rees LLP Constitutional Foundation Article 1; Section 8 Congress shall have the Power to... Promote the Progress.
Update on IP High Court -Trend of Determination on Inventive Step in IP High Court in comparison with the JPO- JPAA International Activities Center Toshifumi.
2007 Revisions to Japanese Patent Law. 2 #1 Period for Filing Divisional Applications (A) BeforeBefore AfterAfter Notice of Allowance Divisional Application.
Trends Relating to Patent Infringement Litigation in JAPAN
Civil Law Civil Law – is also considered private law as it is between individuals. It may also be called “Tort” Law, as a tort is a wrong committed against.
Patent Enforcement & Forum Shopping in China Liu, Shen & Associates: Jun Qiu September 2014.
EU-China Workshop on the Chinese Patent Law 24/25 September 2008 Topic IV: Legal Consequences of Invalidity of a Patent Prof. Dr. Christian Osterrieth.
The Community Trade Mark (CTM) System. The Legal Framework Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark Council Regulation.
NA, Yanghee International Application Team Korean Intellectual Property Office National Phase of PCT international applications April 26,
1 TOPIC III - PATENT INVALIDATION PROCEDURES EU-CHINA WORKSHOP ON THE CHINESE PATENT LAW HARBIN, SEPTEMBER 2008 Dr. Gillian Davies.
Recent Developments in Obtaining and Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights in Nanocomposites Michael P. Dilworth February 28, 2012.
Current Situation of JP Patent based on Statistics (from view point of attacking pending and granted patents) Nobuo Sekine Japan Patent Attorneys Association.
Protection of Trade Secret in Future Japanese Patent Litigation
16/20/11/09 – EU Civil Patent Enforcement HG Patent Rights in the EU – The Civil Enforcement Perspective Heinz Goddar Boehmert & Boehmert.
© 2006 Brett J. Trout Patent Reform Act of 2005 © 2006 Brett J. Trout
Patent Term Extension In Israel
Patent law update.
USPTO Appeal Process: Appeal Strategies and New Rules
PATENT LAW TREATY Gena Jones Senior Legal Advisor
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND CYBER PIRACY
Lessons learned – Lab IP Enforcement
Regional Update In Korea Summary of 2010 Revision in Patent Law
CHALLENGES TO VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS AND REGISTERED VOTERS
What are the types of intellectual property ?
What are the types of intellectual property?
Royal University of Law and Economic
Presentation transcript:

2011 Japanese Patent Law Revision AIPLA Annual Meeting October 21, 2011 Yoshi Inaba TMI Associates

Summary of Revisions 1. Six month Grace Period for any activities by applicant 2. No registration necessary for non- exclusive license 3. Misappropriated patent to be transferred to real owner 4. New Invalidation and Correction Trial procedure 5. Restriction to Re-trail

Summary of Revisions 6.Others:  Registrability of expired trademark  Reduction of fees  Remedy for failure to meet deadline (submission of translation)

Six month Grace Period for any activities by applicant Under the old law Grace Period is available for limited activities conducted by the applicant Under the new law Grace Period is available for any activities conducted by the applicant. Note: Grace Period remains 6 months.

No registration necessary for non- exclusive license Under the old law In order for a non-exclusive license to be effective against a third party including a successor of the patent, there must be a registration at the JPO. Under the new law No such registration is necessary and no such registration exists anymore, but licensee must show that such a license in fact exists. Note: Sen-Yo Jisshiken exclusive license must still be registered.

Misappropriated patent to be transferred to real owner Misappropriated patent means a patent filed by someone who is not an inventor or a successor of the right to obtain a patent. Under the old law There is a provision that such an misappropriated patent can be invalidated but no provision that the patent can be transferred to real owner. Under the new law Real owner may request transfer of such a patent.

Plaintiff Invalidity defense Infringement Defendant Court decision District Court Final and binding Infringement lawsuit Demandant Demandee Invalidity JPO Trial decision Patent correction Final and binding Invalidation trial New Invalidation and Correction Trial procedure - Current “Double track” in validity judgments IP High Court Appeal (lawsuit) Court decision Court decision

New Invalidation and Correction Trial procedure - Current “Catch-ball” phenomenon * Data from Japan Patent Office JPO Cancel trial decision Invalidation trial Reopen trial IP High Court 30 days90 days Patent correction 1 st trial decision Affirm trial decision Patent correction 1 st suit 444 cases* 902 cases in * 267 cases* 190 cases* Appeal (49%) Remand (43%) Final and binding 2 nd suit 81 cases* Patent correction 2 nd trial decision Appeal (43%) 26 cases* (4 cases remanded) Appeal Invalidation trial

New Invalidation and Correction Trial procedure Under the old law  Correction after appeal to IP High Court possible  Case bounces back and forth between the court and JPO. Under the new law  No Correction after appeal to IP High Court possible  Instead, before a final decision made, a preliminary trial decision will be made to give a patentee a Correction opportunity following the preliminary trial decision.

JPO Cancel trial decision IP High Court 30 days90 days old Invalidation trial Reopen trial Patent correction 1 st trial decision Patent correction Cancel trial decision 1 st suit AppealRemand 2 nd suit Patent correction 2 nd trial decision Appeal JPO IP High Court new 30 (or 60) days Patent correction Invalidation trial Preliminary trial decision to invalidate patent Patent correction Patent correction 1 st suit Appeal 30 days 1 st trial decision Cancel trial decision Reopen trial New Invalidation and Correction Trail procedure

New Invalidation and Correction Trial procedure - Third party effect of an invalidation trial decision abolished Under the old law  Once someone files a trial and a decision is made final, another trial based on the same facts and evidence cannot be filed by anyone. Under the new Law  A final invalidation trial decision binds only the parties involved in the invalidation trial.  A third party can still challenge validity of the same patent based on the same facts and evidence

Plaintiff Invalidity defense Infringement Defendant Final and binding court decision District Court Final and binding trial decision Infringement Infringement lawsuit Restriction to Re-trial Invalid patent Retrial Cancel the court decision Patent proprietor returns damage compensation. Demandant Demandee Invalidity JPO Patent correction Invalidation trial Defendant pays damage compensation. X

Restriction to Re-trail Gist of the reform  A final and binding court decision should be respected,  as it was delivered after sufficient offense and defence procedures between the parties, which include a defendant’s plea of invalidity of the patent (Art.104-3) and a patentee’s request to correct deficiencies of the patent. Newly introduced Art  No retrial against a final and binding court decision on the following grounds:  A final and binding trial decision of invalid patent  A final and binding trial decision of invalid extension of patent term  A final and binding trial decision of patent correction Applicable to retrials filed on or after 1 April 2012 (provisional)

Registrability of expired trademark Under the old law A registered trademark or similar thereto cannot be registered by a third party within one year of expiration of the trademark registration. Under the new law Above provision is abolished. No such restriction anymore.

- Remedies for failure to meet translation and patent fee deadlines Under the old law – Very strict  Japanese translation of an English-language application  14 months from a priority date (Art.36-2)  Japanese translation of an English-language PCT application  30 months + 2 months from a priority date (Art.184-4)  Late payment of patent fees (fourth annuity and onwards)  Late payment period: 6 months + surcharge (Art.112) Under the new law  Failure to meet the deadlines can be cured if caused by a justifiable reason  Hospitalization due to illness, unpredictable failure of a docketing system, etc.  Additional 2 months from the date when the reason is ceased, but not later than 1 year from the deadlines.

- Reduction of examination fees Reduction of an examination fee (basic fee)  by about 30% Reduction of PCT international search fees  by about 20-30%

- Fee reduction/exemption requirements for small entity, etc. Points of the revision  Extension of the reduction/exemption term for patent fees from 3 or 6 years to 10 years.  Broadening of the scope of small and medium-sized companies subject to reduction/exemption.  Abolishment of the employee invention requirements for universities, etc.

Effective Date of the Revisions has not yet been decided, but shall be someday before JUNE 8, 2012.

Thank you! Yoshi Inaba TMI Associates