IP PRACTICE IN JAPAN PREMEETING AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute Las Vegas, NV January 22-23, 2012 Shigeyuki Nagaoka, JPAA.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
By David W. Hill AIPLA Immediate Past President Partner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Overview of the America Invents Act.
Advertisements

© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 1 America Invents Act (AIA) Implementation in 2012 Peter D. Sabido Intellectual Property Attorney Kolisch.
1 Patent Practice and Litigation in China John Huang Partner of AllBright Law Offices.
1 1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association Standard for Indefiniteness– Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. Stephen S. Wentsler.
IP Protection in Thailand
1 1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association USPTO Updates Including Glossary Pilot Program Chris Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. IP Practice.
The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union’s FOI lawsuits Ádám Földes HCLU.
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.
Q. TODD DICKINSON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION (AIPLA) USPTO PUBLIC MEETING JULY 20, 2010 AIPLA Comments: Enhanced.
POST-GRANT AMENDMENT JOHN RICHARDS 23 rd Annual Fordham Intellectual Property Law & Policy Conference Cambridge, April 8-9, 2015.
China on the way to a high-technology country: The legal policy perspective Stefan Luginbuehl Lawyer, International Legal Affairs.
JPO’s Reliance on Experimental Results in Patent Applications -From the Aspect of Requirements for Description of Claims and Specification- JPAA International.
JPO Updates JPAA International Activities Center Fujiko Shibata AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting Seminar.
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.
Comparative Law Spring 2002 Professor Susanna Fischer CLASS 29 GERMAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE III FRENCH CIVIL PROCEDURE March 26, 2002.
by Eugene Li Summary of Part 3 – Chapters 8, 9, and 10
JPAA International Activities Center Nobuo Sekine
Secondary Use Patents: An international and Canadian perspective E. Richard Gold James McGill Professor, McGill Faculty of Law Secondary Use Pharmaceutical.
A Comparative Analysis of Patent Post-Grant Review Procedures in the U
January 29, 2013 KOJI MURAI JPAA International Activity Center JTA International Activity Commitee Upcoming Revision of Trademark Law and Design Law in.
Impact of US AIA: What Really Changed? 1 © AIPLA 2015.
1 LAW DIVISION PATENT DIVISION TRADEMARK & DESIGN DIVISION ACCOUNTING & AUDITING DIVISION YUASA AND HARA LAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING.
1993: Hawaii Supreme Court rules that forbidding same-sex couples to marry is unconstitutional sex discrimination under the equal rights provisions of.
Christopher J. Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. Derivation Proceedings and Prior User Rights.
Japanese Design Law Practice - Is Japan ready to join Hague Agreement? – Shigeyuki Nagaoka 2013 JPAA-AIPLA Premeeting October 22-23, 2013 Washington D.C.,
2011 Japanese Patent Law Revision AIPLA Annual Meeting October 21, 2011 Yoshi Inaba TMI Associates.
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.
Appeals in patent examination and opposition in Germany Karin Friehe Judge, Federal Patent Court, Munich, Germany.
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.
© 2004 VOSSIUS & PARTNER Opposition in the Procedural System by Dr. Johann Pitz AIPPI Hungary, June 2 – 4, 2004 Kecskemét.
New Practice of Unity of Invention (Article 37) "Unity of Invention" and "Shift Amendments" under the Revised Examination Guidelines in Japan JPAA International.
About the Amendment of the Patent Law of China Yin Xintian WAN HUI DA Law Firm & Intellectual Property Agency 17 April 2013.
New Ex Parte Appeal Rules Patent and Trademark Practice Group Meeting January 26, 2012.
Revisions to Japanese Patent Law Before the law was revised, a Divisional Applications could not be filed after a Notice of Allowance 2.
© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Post Grant Proceedings Before the USPTO and Litigation Strategies Under the AIA Panelists:David.
QualityDefinition.PPACMeeting AdlerDraft 1 1 Improving the Quality of Patents Marc Adler PPAC meeting June 18, 2009.
Law and Justice Chapter 14 - Trials. Due Process of Law Due Process of Law Due Process of Law Means little to people unless they are arrested Means little.
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.
19 June '09Effects and execution of the constitutional review judgments 1 Execution and effect of the constitutional review judgments in Estonia Gea Suumann.
Supreme Court Decision on Enforceability of a US Court Decision Dr. Shoichi Okuyama AIPPI Japan AIPLA Pre-meeting on October 22, 2014.
 The United States has an adversarial court system. › This means that two opposing sides must argue their cases before a judge in order to find the truth.
Takeo Nasu JPAA International Activities Center AIPLA 2015 Mid-Winter Institute IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting Seminar Updates of Post Grant.
Derivation Proceedings Gene Quinn Patent Attorney IPWatchdog.com March 27 th, 2012.
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.
Patent Reexamination: Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Reexamination and Litigation.
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
Constitutional Law I Appellate Review Aug. 30, 2004.
LEVELS OF THE COURTS. FEDERAL – US DISTRICT COURTS 94 in the USA 94 in the USA Handle cases of Handle cases of Constitution Constitution Federal Laws.
1 US and Japan Sides Discussion and Update: Attorney-Client Privilege Takahiro FUJIOKA Meisei International Patent Firm AIPLA 2004 Mid-Winter Institute.
Report to the AIPLA’s IP Practice in Japan Committee January 22, 2012 USPTO Appeal Process: Appeal Strategies and New Rules Presented by: Stephen S. Wentsler.
Enablement requirement in view of recent IP court decisions Toshihiko Aikawa Japan Patent Attorneys Association International Activities Center AIPLA Mid-Winter.
Inventive Step in Japan and my personal reflection Dr. Shoichi Okuyama Okuyama & Sasajima AIPPI Japan January 2015 Orlando, Florida 1.
Supreme Court Decision: Product-by-Process Claims AIPLA Annual Meeting 2015 IP Practice in Japan Pre-Meeting Seminar Yoshiki KITANO Japan Patent Attorneys.
Maintenance of patented products Dr. Shoichi Okuyama Vice President, AIPPI Japan January 27-28, 2016 Pre-meeting, AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute.
JP Supreme Court (Nov. 17, 2015) Patent Term Extension based on a Second Marketing Approval Pre-Meeting AIPLA MWI La Quinta, CA: Jan.26, 2016 Hirokazu.
The Impact of Patent Reform on Independent Inventors and Start-up Companies Mark Nowotarski (Patent Agent)
Presentation at Biotechnology/ Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Program Partnership Program March 15, 2005 POST-GRANT REVIEW: A COMPARISON.
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.
NA, Yanghee International Application Team Korean Intellectual Property Office National Phase of PCT international applications April 26,
Current Situation of JP Patent based on Statistics (from view point of attacking pending and granted patents) Nobuo Sekine Japan Patent Attorneys Association.
PCT-FILING SYSTEM.
Nick Reeve Reddie & Grose LLP
Recent Decision(s) relating to Employee Inventions
USPTO Appeal Process: Appeal Strategies and New Rules
How to examine a Supreme Court Case
James Toupin POST-GRANT REVIEW: A COMPARISON OF USPTO
Presentation transcript:

IP PRACTICE IN JAPAN PREMEETING AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute Las Vegas, NV January 22-23, 2012 Shigeyuki Nagaoka, JPAA

Correction Trial & Exception of "Group of Claims" 2

・ What is Correction Trial? ・ Background & Underlying Issues ・ Key Provisions & Group of Claims ・ Practical Tips 3

WHAT IS CORRECTION TRIAL? Tool for amending patent claims, specification and drawings after grant (Art. 126) JPO Appeal Board handles Correction Trial Similar to Reissue Patent In US 4

WHAT IS CORRECTION TRIAL? Art. 126(1) – Patentee may request Correction Trial to amend specification, claims or drawings Art. 126(2) – Correction Trial may not be filed from filing of Invalidation Trial in JPO until Invalidation Decision is finalized 5

BACKGROUND & UNDERLYING ISSUES Claims are examined as-a-whole – Appeal against Examiner’s Refusal (Art. 121) – Appeal Board makes decision as-a-whole If claim 1 is NG and claim 2 is OK, Appeal Board makes single negative decision This Japan practice is different from the US 6

BACKGROUND & UNDERLYING ISSUES Exception to “as-a-whole” basis is explicitly stipulated in Patent Law – Invalidation Trial (Art. 123 (1)) Court Decisions –Decision is made claim by claim – e.g. Claim 1 is invalid but claim 2 is valid 7

BACKGROUND & UNDERLYING ISSUES If handled on “claim by claim” basis in Correction Trial Corrections to claims 1 and 3 are allowed Correction to claim 2 is dismissed PATENT CLAIMS Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 CLAIMS ON TRIAL Claim 1' OK Claim 2' NG Claim 3' OK TRIAL DECISION Claim 1' Claim 2 Claim 3' 8

BACKGROUND & UNDERLYING ISSUES If handled on “as-a-whole” basis Corrections to claims 1 and 3 are not allowed All or Nothing PATENT CLAIMS Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 CLAIMS ON TRIAL Claim 1' OK Claim 2' NG Claim 3' OK TRIAL DECISION Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 9

BACKGROUND & UNDERLYING ISSUES No provisions stipulate that Correction Trial may be filed claim by claim although Invalidation Trial may be filed claim by claim Supreme Court Decision in 2008 (LED Module Case) Nevertheless, claims having certain relationship should be handled together 10

BACKGROUND & UNDERLYING ISSUES Claims Having Certain Relationship Example: When claim 2 depends from claim 1 Claim 2 returns to before-correction under current practice Claim 2 illogically depends from claim 1 Claims 1 and 2 should be handled as group PATENT CLAIMS Claim 1 = A Claim 2 = A + B CLAIMS ON TRIAL Claim 1' = a OK Claim 2' = a + b NG TRIAL DECISION Claim 1' = a Claim 2 = A + B 11

KEY PROVISIONS & GROUP OF CLAIMS New provision allowing patentee to file Correction Trial on claim-by-claim basis (Art. 126(3) 1st sentence ) New provision prohibiting Correction Trial on claim-by-claim basis when claims define “group of claims” (Art. 126(3) 2nd sentence) Definition of “group of claims” is set forth in Art. 126(3) and Rule 46bis(1)-(4) 12

KEY PROVISIONS & GROUP OF CLAIMS Handled on “group of claims" basis All claims 1-3 return to before-correction because claim 2’ is in bad shape and claims 1-3 should be kept together PATENT CLAIMS Claim 1 = A Claim 2 = A + B Claim 3 = A + C CLAIMS ON TRIAL Claim 1' = a OK Claim 2' = a + b NG Claim 3' = a + c OK TRIAL DECISION Claim 1 = A Claim 2 = A + B Claim 3 = A + C

KEY PROVISIONS & GROUP OF CLAIMS Art. 126(3) –If one claim (e.g. claim 2) depends from another claim (e.g. claim 1), then these claims define group of claims Claim 1 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 14

KEY PROVISIONS & GROUP OF CLAIMS Rule 46bis(1) –If one or more claims (e.g. claim 3) depend from another claim (e.g. claim 2) that already depends from still another claim (e.g. claim 1), then these claims define group of claims Claim 1 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 Claim 3 depends from claim 2 15

KEY PROVISIONS & GROUP OF CLAIMS Rule 46bis(2) –If multiple claims (e.g. claims 2 and 3) depend from one claim (e.g. claim 1), then these claims define group of claims Claim 1 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 Claim 3 depends from claim 1 16

KEY PROVISIONS & GROUP OF CLA IMS Rule 46bis(3) –If one claim (e.g. claim 3) depends from multiple claims (e.g. claims 1 and 2), then these claims define group of claims Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 depends from claim 1 or 2 17

KEY PROVISIONS & GROUP OF CLAIMS Rule 46bis(4) –If one claim (claim 2) depends from another claim (claim 1) and other claims (claims 3-5) have relationship of §46bis(1), (2) or (3), then these claims (claims 1-5) define group of claims when any claim (claim 3) in those having relationship of §46bis(1), (2) or (3) depends from said one claim (claim 2) or said another claim (claim 1); or Claim 1 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 Claim 3 depends from claim 1 Claim 4 depends from claim 3 Claim 5 depends from claim 4

KEY PROVISIONS & GROUP OF CLAIMS Rule 46bis(4) cont'd –If there are one group of claims (claims 1-3) and another group of claims (claims 4-6) each having relationship of §46bis(1), (2) or (3), then these groups of claims (claims 1-6) define combined group of claims when any claim (claim 4) in said another group of claims depends from any claim (claim 1) in said one group of claims Claim 1 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 Claim 3 depends from claim 2 Claim 4 depends from claim 1 Claim 5 depends from claim 4 Claim 6 depends from claim 5

PRACTICAL TIPS Make sure which claims define “group of claims” –You have to file Correction Trial for all of those claims which belong to particular group of claims (Art. 126(4)) 20

PRACTICAL TIPS New provision Art. 126(1)(iv) allows you to disengage one or more claims from “group of claims” Claims 1-3 make no longer group of claims! This is very confusing! Claim 1 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 Claim 3 depends from claim 2 Claim 1 independent claim Claim 2 independent claim Claim 3 independent claim 21

PRACTICAL TIPS When you make corrections to specification or drawings, make sure all relevant claims are corrected at same time (Art. 126(4)) Claim 2 must be included in Correction Trial Request if claim 2 depends from claim 1 Correction Trial Request To correct particular term in specification To correct that term in claim 1 22

Arigato Gozaimashita Shigeyuki Nagaoka Japan Patent Attorneys Association 23