1. 1 Further Developments on Group B+ Agreement concerning SPLT Kay KONISHI APAA Patents Committee, APAA Council Meeting in Adelaide, Nov. 18, 2007

2. 2 1.Multiple Forums concerning “ Harmonization ” Efforts for Patent System Harmonization 1)Substantial Harmonization -SPLT -SPLT 1)Procedural Harmonization -work-sharing scheme -work-sharing scheme (Patent Prosecution Highway, Single format) (Patent Prosecution Highway, Single format) 1) Substantial Harmo Forum -WIPO: 2000- SCP#1-SCP#11 (2006) (2006) -Group B+ Meetings 2) Procedural Harmo Forum -Tri-lateral (USPTO, EPO, JPO)

3. 3 2.1. Substantial Harmo at WIPO 2007 WIPO General Assembly -Sep.24-Oct.3, 2007 at WIPO -Some progress concerning “ WIPO Development Agenda ” Agenda ” -NO progress concerning SPLT

4. 4 2.2.What ’ s Group B+ Meeting? Group B+: Developed countries including: -WIPO B group (industrialized countries), EU member states, EPC member states, EPO, 41 EC member countries + 2 organization member states, EPO, 41 EC member countries + 2 organization -Started on Feb. 2005 -Objectives: to take common position to move the harmonization discussion forward in WIPO the harmonization discussion forward in WIPO -”Highway” discussion without North-South issues -Aiming to make “single text of SPLT draft” for the North-South negotiation in WIPO North-South negotiation in WIPO -Annual plenary session in Office commissioner level (hosted among tri-lateral) (hosted among tri-lateral) -Two working groups in Office practitioner level WG1: SPLT WG2: Disclosure of GR and Development Agenda

5. 5 2.3. Rationale among Group B+ -Reducing examination workload for Offices workload for Offices -Cost effectiveness, early grant of patent for users -Eliminate duplicated search/examination search/examination among countries -Speeding-up examination 200,000/Y Over 200,000/Y applications are duplicated among the Tri- lateral Harmonization of “ Prior Art ” is crucial! is crucial! → “ First package ” 400,000/Y 800,000 JP: 400,000/Y applications filed, and 800,000 case backlog (2006)

6. 6 2.4. First Package “ Initial Package ” approach in SPLT Discussion “ Minimum harmo ” as 1 st step 1) Definition of Prior Art (for search) 2) Grace Period (for search) 3) Novelty (for exam.) -Unovbiousness/ Inventive-step (for exam.)

7. 7 2.5. B+ WG1 discussions -What ’ s agreed first? Within the scope of the “ first package ”… Agreed: (1) The definition of the Prior Art before the priority date (2) Novelty, the Assessment of Novelty, and the Items of Prior Art Largely in agreement: Inventive Step/Non-Obviousness except Secret Prior Art

8. 8 2.6. B+ Plenary Discussions -What ’ s next? -Chaired by AU Within the scope of the “ first package ”… (1)Thumbs-up items: Agreed to proceed for further consensus in WG, B+ WG will start to make position paper for drafting B+ WG will start to make position paper for drafting “ single text ” of SPLT “ single text ” of SPLT (2) Thumbs-down items: Controversy on whether to table at B+ forum

9. 9 2.7. Thumbs-up items Transition to the First-to-file systemTransition to the First-to-file system NO Hilmer DoctrineNO Hilmer Doctrine Prior art effect of an application which claims foreign priority Prior art effect of an application which claims foreign priority 3. Grace Period -12 month -12 month -No declaration -No declaration 4. 3 rd party ’ s right (optional) 5. Unified “ Prior Art ” 6. No prior art effect of abstract 7. No Grace Period for publication of own patent application 8. Secret prior art effect of PCT applications from international filing date 9. NO provision stipulating Inventive-step/ Non-obviousness standard/criteria in the SPLT standard/criteria in the SPLT

10. 10 2.8. Thumbs-down items Mandatory 18 month publication of patent applicationsMandatory 18 month publication of patent applications Secret Prior Art eligible for destroying both novelty andSecret Prior Art eligible for destroying both novelty and inventive-step inventive-step 3.Mandatory anti-self collision provision 4.Mandatory 3 rd party ’ s right 5.Balance between inventor ’ s interest and legal certainty for 3 rd parties 6.Patentable subject matter Beyond the “ First Package ”… US: Inventor’s interest EP: Legal certainty for 3 rd parties

11. 11 2.9. Pre- and post-KSR Non-obviousness in US Start: Objective test (TSM test) established S1: Too much rigid application of the TSM test (No flexibility for examiners) S2: Too many bad quality patents S3: Featuring “ common sense ” (KSR Sup. Ct. Decision) ???

12. 12 2.10. To what extent should the inventive step standard harmonize? uniformstandardflexiblestandard USEPJP NEVER pass over great invention (NO hindsight) NEVER grant trivial invention (needs common sense) Two proposition in trade-off relationship

13. 13 Kay KONISHI MIYOSHI & MIYOSHI konishi@miyoshipat.co.jp