cases

米国(1)

Q. 米国における"utility patent"とはどのようなものか?

A. 米国特許には、実用特許(utility patent)、意匠特許(design patent)、植物特許(plant patent)の3種類があり、実用特許(utility patent)は、日本などにおける通常の特許に対応します。米国における"utility patent"を、日本における「実用新案」に対応するものと誤解されることが多いようですが、実用新案を表す英語は"utility model"です。

Q. 米国における「仮出願」とはどのようなものか?

A. 文字通り、優先権を確保するという目的のためだけの「仮の出願」(provisional application)です。通常の出願と異なり、要求事項が非常に少ないのが特徴です。主な特徴は以下の通りです。

- 出願言語は問われず日本語など英語以外の言語でも出願可。

- 通常の出願に要求されるような明細書の体裁は不要(クレームも不要、手書き図面もOK)1)

- 仮出願に対して審査が行われることは無く、出願日から12カ月以内に仮出願に基づく優先権主張をして通常の特許出願(non-provisional application)をしないと、その仮出願は自動的に放棄される。

- 通常の特許出願に移行した場合に限り、仮出願の出願日が、米国特許法第102条(a)項(2)号(旧法の102条(e)に対応)における「先願」としての基準日、即ち、後願排除の有効日となる2)

- 日本や欧州など殆どの国において、米国の仮出願に基づくパリ条約優先権主張が認められる3)

- 出願料は250ドル(約2万円)。

2011年の法改正(Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,AIA)によって米国は先発明主義から先願主義に移行しますが、それに伴って仮出願制度の重要性が増すであろうと言われております。

注:

1) 但し、仮出願の明細書に、発明が理解でき且つ実施可能な程度に記載されていなければなりません。即ち、記載要件と実施可能要件(明細書の記載に関する特許法112条第一パラグラフ)を満たす書類を提出する必要があります。といっても、上記のように、仮出願には通常の出願に要求されるような明細書の体裁は不要ですので、何らかの形で発明が十分に開示されていれば、仮出願に基づく優先権は通常認められます。例えば、仮出願において、説明を書き加えた図面を提出し、それを優先権の根拠とすることもできます。

また、英語以外の言語で仮出願した場合には、仮出願もしくは本出願において、仮出願の翻訳文を提出しなければ、仮出願の出願日への遡及を享受することができません。

2) 要するに、適正に本出願に移行した場合、仮出願は、その出願日以降に出願された第三者の出願に対して、102条の新規性及び/又は103条の自明性に関する先行技術となり得ます(Giacomini判決を参照;また、上記判決で言及されるAlexander Milburn Co. v Davis-Bournonville Co.を参照)。

なお、米国特許法第102条(a)項(2)号における「先願」としての基準日、即ち、後願排除の有効日については、こちらで詳しく述べましたように、2011年の改正法(AIA)により、旧法の102条(e)における所謂「ヒルマードクトリン(Hilmer Doctrine)」が廃止されました。これにより、米国以外の第一国出願の出願日も後願排除目的に有効な出願日(effective filing date)として認められることになりましたので、パリ条約に基づく優先日が後願排除の有効日とみなされることになり、また、PCT出願は(その出願言語に関わらず)、優先権主張していれば優先日、優先権主張していなければ国際出願日が、後願排除の有効日とみなされることになります。

3) 米国の仮出願に基づくパリ優先権を主張して、米国外に出願することも可能です。しかし、その様な場合、米国外の出願が、米国の仮出願にサポートされているか否か(優先権主張の有効性が認められるか否か)の判断は、その国の法律・規則に基づいて判断されます。この点、特に欧州は、欧州出願の発明が、基礎出願明細書から直接的且つ一義的に導き出せるものである場合にのみ優先権主張の有効性が認められますので、米国では優先権の有効性が認められるようなケースでも、欧州では認められないということが起こりえます。例えば、米国においては、上記の通り、図面に基づくサポートにも寛容であり、多くの場合認められますが、欧州においては、図面のみをサポートとして主張しても、認められない傾向があります。

Q. 出願明細書には必ず実施例を記載する必要があるのか

A. 当業者が過度の実験なしに発明を実施できるように記載されていれば、明細書に実施例を記載する必要は有りません[In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908, 164 USPQ 642, 645 (CCPA 1970)]。

Q. 日本における特許出願の場合は、請求項が発明の詳細な説明によりサポートされていなければならないと規定されている(特許法第36条6項1号)が、米国の場合も同様の規定があるか

A. 米国の審査基準(MPEP)にも、日本特許法第36条6項1号の規定に相当する規定が有ります。即ち、MPEP § 608.01(g)及び608.01(o)には以下の規定が有ります。

608.01(g)   Detailed Description of Invention

A detailed description of the invention and drawings follows the general statement of invention and brief description of the drawings. ・・・・・ Every feature specified in the claims must be illustrated, but there should be no superfluous illustrations. 

608.01(o)   Basis for Claim Terminology in Description

The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. ・・・・・The specification should be objected to if it does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claims by using form paragraph7.44.

上記608.01(g)においては、クレームに記載された全ての特徴について、明細書本文に説明がなければならないと規定されています。但し、当業者には自明の周知事項まで明細書に説明する必要はありません。

上記608.01(o)には、クレームについて明細書本文にも適切な開示が無い場合には、拒絶される旨規定されています。

従って、米国においても日本と同様に、クレームが明細書本文の記載にサポートされていることが要求されると考えます。

タグ:

特許  米国  PCT  出願  クレーム  発明  日本  欧州  新規性  記載  提出  必要  明細書  米国特許  上記  以下  application  翻訳  審査  拒絶  or  be  patent  先行技術  先願  判断  可能  請求項  英語  意匠  移行  特許出願  国際出願  主張  開示  実施例  実用新案  要求  an  対応  説明  請求  要件  制度  優先権  not  filing  規定  with  同様  design  通常  日本語  特徴  claim  翻訳文  後願  AIA  月以内  EP  先願主義  date  規則  at  技術  第三者  one  パリ  art  当業者  非常  基準  特許法  出願日  invention  重要  10  実験  実施  十分  claims  any  改正  理解  審査基準  優先権主張  new  有効  search  優先日  出願明細書  不要  判決  MPEP  サポート  欧州出願  仮出願  詳細  根拠  utility  図面  言語  www  書類  case  種類  参照  目的  use  自明性  所謂  以外  model  ケース  自明  should  法改正  基礎出願  under  specification  日以降  事項  but  放棄  先発明主義  相当  傾向  non  記載要件  誤解  Act  must  Invents  America  there  米国特許法  程度  条約  実施可能要件  ex  effective  重要性  high  有効性  後願排除  re  旧法  parent  特許法第  国際出願日  disclosure  適切  直接  2d  identified  法律  基礎  form  確保  using  cases  general  Hilmer  Invention  優先  周知  state  Search  英語以外  provide  遡及  used  条第  do  does  直接的  米国以外  very  index  ドル  follows  inoue  102  有効日  Doctrine  clear  米国特許法第  明細書本文  drawings  Claim  実施可能  本出願  reference  ヒルマードクトリン  米国外  享受  第一国出願  基準日  自動的  廃止  実用特許  therein  basis  直接的且  USPQ  her  日本特許  Leahy  per  am  parts  sea  its  先発明  Smith  term  herein  statement  訳文  designating  description  国外  以内  出願料  第一国  文字通  文字  portion  ratio  part  CCPA  意匠特許  specific  feature  every  以降  一義的  applies  apparent  主義  言及  ドクトリン  植物特許  up  国際  objected  改正法  出願言語  適正  後願排除目的  新規  新規性及  過度  寛容  排除  02  出願日以降  先行  出願制度  体裁  明細  要求事項  日本特許法  リン  上記判決  本文  low  mechanical  provisional  plant  fr  effect  ed  descriptive  drawing  ip  invent  searched  Every  vs  Detailed  Description 

English

Welcome to the website of Inoue & Associates

Introductory Statement

Inoue & Associates (located within 1 minute walk from the Japan Patent Office) is an intellectual property (IP) firm having more than 35 years of experience in international IP business.

We are a modest-sized IP firm composed of members each having profound knowledge about the legal aspect of IP and the technologies involved therein as well as excellent skill in actual IP practice, such that high quality services can be offered constantly at a reasonable price.  Each one of our staff members is so trained as to be able to always provide high quality IP-related services including production of documents having a clear and logical construction whether they are in English or Japanese and irrespective of urgency or technical difficulties involved in particular cases.

Over the years, we have built up a solid reputation for our ability to efficiently acquire and protect IP rights in Japan.

We are confident that we can provide higher quality IP services than any other IP firms in Japan.


Features of Inoue & Associates

For acquiring and protecting patent rights, everything starts from the claims and specification of a patent application or a granted patent.  Whether a patent application can be granted with a desired protective scope or a granted patent can survive the challenge from a third party depends utterly on how good the claims and specification have been drafted in the first place.

Invalidation of patents, unexpectedly narrow scope of protection, defeat in infringement suit … all such undesired outcome could have been avoided only if the patent application had been better drafted. 

In the case of Japanese patent applications filed by non-Japanese entities, the claims and specification are usually translations from the non-Japanese texts of the first filed foreign applications or PCT applications. 

From this perspective, the translation of the patent claims and specification is actually more than just a translation and is practically tantamount to the preparation of a legal document which serves as a basis for seeking patent protection.  For this reason, the translation should be done with utmost care by IP professionals such as experienced patent attorneys or paralegals

And that is what we do and is not done by most of the IP firms in Japan

 

Problems related to traditional way of handling patent applications from outside Japan

In typical Japanese IP firms, applications from foreign clients are handled by a team of an IP professional (a patent attorney or a paralegal) and a translator. For example, the translation of a PCT specification for the Japan national phase entry is often carried out by one who is the least experienced in the IP firm or even by an outside translator.

The IP professions work on legal matters based on the translations prepared by translators which are not always so good or of a rather poor quality in many cases. This manner of handling patents is disadvantageous not only from the aspect of efficiency but also from the aspect of cost because poor translations of course make the entire procedure unnecessarily complicated and high translation fees are required even if the translations are not so good. Such inefficient and problematic practice as mentioned above has become customary because many Japanese IP professionals are not good at writing in English or even reading English documents, and the English-to-Japanese translations are generally assigned to beginners.

Consequently, many Japanese IP professionals have to rely on poor translations in their works, thus falling into a vicious cycle. It is not surprising even if patent applications from foreign clients are handled by those who do not fully understand what is disclosed in the original specification nor the clients’ instructions given in English during the prosecution of the application. For years, this has been a serious problem as far as the patent applications from outside Japan are concerned.

Our Solution

Such problems as mentioned above will never happen in the case of Inoue & Associates. Every one of our staff members has gone through very hard training and long actual experience to acquire ability to handle the IP cases alone from drafting patent specifications whether they are in Japanese or English to dealing with various procedures relating to patent applications or registered patents. We do not need and actually do not use any translator. Even in the case of foreign patent applications (in US, EP etc.) filed by Japanese applicants through our firm, the US or European patent attorneys often use our draft documents without any substantial change. That is, the documents drafted by Inoue & Associates as such are often submitted to the USPTO or the EPO.

There is no magic formula for acquiring good IP rights. This can be achieved only by hard work and skill obtainable through long and rich experience as always required in any fields for realizing high quality services.

Inoue & Associates is one of the very limited number of Japanese IP firms capable of constantly offering high quality IP services at a reasonable price. There has been and will be no compromise in the quality of services we provide to our clients and, for this very reason, we have been trusted by many foreign clients as well as domestic clients.

Our skill in IP business is highly esteemed by our clients including two famous Japanese professors emeriti, Dr. Nobuatsu Watanabe and Dr. Hidefumi Hirai, whose recommendations are shown in this web site. Further, if requested, we will be able to show you copies of some letters from various US and EP attorneys praising our abilities.

Our highly-skilled staff members will surely be of great help to your establishment of strong and valuable intellectual property portfolio while reducing cost.

If you are not sure, try us and we promise that we will never fall short of your expectations. You will immediately realize that we are dedicated to efficient acquisition and protection of your valuable intellectual properties and have skills to achieve this goal.

タグ:

PCT  EPO  application  or  be  patent  USPTO  Japan  an  Patent  Japanese  not  with  filed  claim  Office  EP  at  one  art  claims  any  has  grant  applications  request  above  file  only  been  case  within  such  use  other  into  IP  Statement  phase  will  European  we  more  documents  should  under  specification  than  mentioned  related  all  but  right  problem  having  non  services  We  also  inter  through  third  there  registered  based  go  patents  translations  applicant  so  excellent  ex  about  high  rights  practice  foreign  technical  required  scope  reasonable  even  re  fee  granted  years  each  end  without  Inoue  legal  party  business  English  national  Further  form  prepared  cases  etc  long  general  out  shown  including  international  skill  two  first  need  quality  properties  example  because  many  skilled  during  prosecution  provide  amount  their  least  do  year  Associates  very  clients  substantial  usually  respect  firm  given  translation  some  experience  ep  Intellectual  those  protection  clear  carried  obtain  original  Problem  make  matter  Property  side  efficiency  reason  knowledge  well  had  infringement  who  document  Solution  staff  construction  cost  limit  course  therein  Such  country  basis  production  they  outside  various  her  specifications  found  firms  per  applicants  see  good  am  poor  work  always  website  whether  product  attorneys  property  entry  intellectual  drafted  his  herein  expectation  limited  often  nor  members  disclosed  could  submitted  thus  understand  valid  web  vice  what  instruction  require  reading  ratio  ability  become  number  actually  act  place  closed  located  There  part  particular  care  specific  surely  far  fees  field  start  every  draft  how  highly  service  aspect  fields  desired  complicated  entire  concerned  change  capable  exam  done  Invalidation  Consequently  Trademark  Trade  advantage  able  acquire  actual  Services  valuable  late  requested  unexpected  instructions  short  show  serious  up  involved  isa  own  professionals  professional  problems  procedure  practically  minute  protecting  now  most  skills  immediately  texts  fully  handling  handled  submit  help  translator  solid  never  oa  State  abilities  man  advantageous  acquiring  logical  mm  Watanabe  manner  rather  read  Hirai  Hidefumi  red  professor  procedures  protective  price  Nobuatsu  fr  full  depends  generally  constantly  higher  hard  great  experienced  efficiently  establish  entities  everything  esteemed  ed  domestic  ip  avoided  attorney  Dr  Each  suit  try  trusted  Even  Every  rich  surprising  An  site  works  signed  way  while  utmost  trained  reputation 

宣誓供述書の書き方について(2):米国(Part 2)

[例2] この例においては、[例1]のように宣誓供述書の供述内容を別紙のExhibit(甲号証又は乙号証)とはしていません。また、発明者以外によって署名された例です。

内容としては、医療装置(変形爪の矯正装置)に関する二次的考慮事項(商業的成功など)に関して提出したものです。(米国出願の中間処理において弊所が実際に提出したものに基づいていますが、固有名詞・用語・数値などは適宜変更してあります。)

(商業的成功に関する宣誓供述書の書式の1例)

IN THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Applicant:Taro YAMADA
Serial No.:XX/XXX,XXX
Filed:XXXX, 20XX
For:APPARATUS FOR CORRECTING AN INGROWN NAIL
Art Unit:3772
Examiner:Dan HICKS

 



DECLARATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. 1.132

 

    I, Goro Kimura, a Japanese citizen residing at XXXX, Tokyo, Japan, declare and say: 
    I was graduated from the Faculty of Medicine, XXX University in March 2005.
    In April 2005, I entered XYZ Clinic where I have been practicing the treatment of hallux valgus and ingrown nails.
    I am well familiar with the present case.
    I read and understood the Office Action dated XXXX, 2011 and references cited therein. I have carried out treatments of ingrown nails with the apparatus disclosed in claim 1 of the present application at XYZ Clinic following the instructions given by Mr. Taro Yamada who is the director of the clinic and is the inventor of the present application. Some of the results of the treatments are as reported in the website of XYZ Clinic at http://www.adcdefg-hijk.com.
    In the website, three cases of treatments are reported.  The treatments were performed using an apparatus as shown in Fig. A attached hereto.  As can be seen from Fig. A, the apparatus falls within the scope of claim 1 of the present application.
    As to the three cases (cases 1 to 3), the nails before and after the treatments are shown in Figs. B, C and D attached hereto, which are also shown at the above-mentioned website of XYZ Clinic.  In each of the tree treatments, the apparatus as shown in Fig. A was used as mentioned above.  Further, the reagents and operations in cases 1 to 3 were substantially the same as recited in Example 1 of the present application (paragraphs [00XX] to [00XX] of the specification of the present application) except that the inclination angle A of the lifting members, the lifting intervals and the nail correcting force were slightly varied depending on the characteristics of the ingrown nails of the patients.  As reported in the website of XYZ Clinic, the details of cases 1 to 3 are as follows.

Case 1:
Patient's gender and age:
    A female in her 30's.

Patient's background: 
    The patient wished to avoid a painful treatment because she had heard her acquaintance's report about having received a very painful operation for correcting an ingrown nail at another hospital which seemed to have been carried out without anesthesia.  The patient came to XYZ Clinic because she was attracted by the painless treatment of this clinic.

Results:
    The ingrown nail was corrected as shown in Fig. B by a single treatment which took about only 30 minutes.  The patient was satisfied with the results of the treatment because the ingrown nail had been corrected without feeling any pain during and after the treatment.

Case 2:
Patient's gender and age:
 
    A female in her 40's.

Patient's background: 
    The patient had a previous experience of nail-correction using a wire device which is to be hooked to the edges of the ingrown sides of the nail and is designed to lift the ingrown sides by pulling the hooked portions of the wire toward the center of the nail.
    However, she needed to go to the hospital so frequently that it became troublesome to her. As a result, the patient stopped going to the hospital before the completion of the nail correction.
    The patient also had a previous experience of nail-correction using a correction plate which is to be adhered on the surface of an ingrown nail and lifts the ingrown sides of the nail by the spring force of the plate, but the plate came off from the nail soon.

Results: 
    The ingrown nail was corrected as shown in Fig. C by performing twice an approx. 30-minute treatment, and the patient was pleased with the result.

Case 3:
Patient's gender and age: 
    A female in her 50's.

Patient's background: 
    Previously, the patient had her ingrown nail corrected by treatment using a wire device similar to that used by the patient of case 2, which treatment lasted about 18 months. However, the ingrown nail recurred after the termination of the treatment.

Results: 
    The ingrown nail was corrected as shown in Fig. D by a single approx. 30-minute treatment.  During and after the treatment, the patient did not feel any pain nor uncomfortable feeling.

    Finally, it should be added that almost all of the 900 patients having received this treatment so far were very satisfied with the results.

    From the above, it is apparent that the apparatus of the present invention surely enables the correction of an ingrown nail within a very short period of time, 1.e., within about 30 minutes to about 1 hour, with a very simple operation and without causing any pain nor uncomfortable feeling to the patent.
    Thus, the apparatus of the present invention has realized a surprisingly easy and effective treatment which is far more advantageous than the conventional surgical removal method which is complicated, cumbersome and is accompanied by pain during or after the surgery and risk of microbial infection, and the conventional treatments using various correction devices or apparatuses which are in many cases not so effective and require very long treatment periods.

    The undersigned petitioner declares that all statements made herein of his own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon.

Date:

(宣誓者の署名)
Goro Kimura

タグ:

米国  出願  発明  提出  application  or  be  patent  弊所  宣誓供述書  Japan  an  Japanese  not  with  design  変更  考慮  Final  claim  実際  Action  米国出願  period  Office  発明者  date  at  one  rce  invention  present  after  any  内容  has  treatment  above  epo  report  only  been  www  case  within  書式  such  use  other  may  months  will  以外  we  more  should  method  under  specification  than  made  事項  mentioned  results  all  but  中間処理  having  処理  Act  also  same  inter  information  was  there  用語  go  Art  nail  both  so  Case  ex  effective  about  医療  University  following  ingrown  time  scope  re  parent  fee  month  similar  each  end  without  residing  However  single  供述内容  署名  中間  Applicant  April  before  Further  装置  Exhibit  treatments  form  using  cases  XXXX  long  statements  成功  further  patient  out  XX  shown  inventor  need  state  Tokyo  数値  United  because  Ex  many  Examiner  during  有名  Mr  used  宣誓  PATENT  were  States  very  宣誓者  correction  substantial  follows  given  XXX  some  where  experience  ep  carried  Clinic  side  knowledge  recited  well  had  商業的成功  true  reference  who  like  供述書  cited  details  another  apparatus  device  declare  Fig  therein  these  willful  satisfied  petition  references  various  her  別紙  per  pending  Patient  see  Date  three  am  XYZ  Title  received  website  back  term  corrected  his  herein  result  March  statement  OFFICE  nor  Example  EC  citizen  convention  members  disclosed  dated  thereon  understood  valid  undersigned  二次的考慮事項  固有名詞  web  vice  宣誓供述  instruction  portion  issuing  depending  require  reported  ratio  nails  background  added  act  performed  petitioner  plate  closed  kg  less  pain  specific  DECLARATION  she  false  surely  far  substantially  how  Faculty  believed  feeling  apparent  female  devices  attached  familiar  complicated  conventional  発明者以外  How  20XX  Taro  Thus  UNDER  TRADEMARK  advantage  able  適宜変更  Results  say  late  wire  instructions  short  show  sides  own  previous  please  perform  商業的  minute  now  most  took  surface  hospital  ground  graduated  hereto  gender  二次的  乙号証  Section  Serial  Some  State  Re  painful  operations  operation  YAMADA  man  lifting  advantageous  accompanied  low  minutes  Unit  read  Kimura  punishable  red  periods  performing  patients  practicing  fr  declares  forming  force  hooked  correcting  except  effect  entered  enables  ed  fine  easy  became  invent  jeopardize  belief  believe  almost  approx  imprisonment  clinic  inform  came  characteristics  validity  uses  surgical  surprising  uncomfortable  site  simple  Code  signed  DE  Goro  toward  00XX  Finally  Filed 

Samples

The following is a list of some examples of US patents obtained through our firm.

We suppose that it might be rather difficult for most of the non-Japanese clients to evaluate the quality of our works done for Japanese IP rights.

For such non-Japanese clients, the US patents listed may be useful for evaluating our abilities. We always dedicate tremendous efforts to draft English claims and specifications properly. For example, in the case of PCT applications, we draft Japanese specifications for PCT based on Japanese patent applications which had often been prepared and filed through other Japanese IP firms or by Japanese applicants themselves.

We usually make considerable modifications to the original Japanese specifications and claims for filing PCT applications. Especially in the case where the basic Japanese application has not been filed through our firm, we thoroughly check the application and usually redraft the claims into a form which has more clear and logical construction and can cover a desired protective scope, and also redraft the specification by supplementing information necessary to enable the invention or information which might be useful in the later prosecution stage for overcoming possible rejections.

Therefore, it can be said that, in many cases, the US patents are our translations of the Japanese language PCT specifications drafted by our firm.

We sometimes ask US patent attorneys to check our drafts of English specifications, but they usually find that no substantial change is necessary.

In addition, during the prosecutions of the foreign patent applications, our draft responses (amendments and arguments) are usually submitted to the patent offices without any substantial changes or with only minor changes.

Consequently, we believe that the US patents listed here would be of great help for you to evaluate our skills in IP business.

The documents which we prepare have been highly esteemed by the foreign patent attorneys.

タグ:

PCT  application  or  be  patent  Japan  an  Japanese  not  filing  with  filed  claim  at  one  invention  claims  any  has  applications  office  file  only  been  case  such  use  other  into  IP  may  we  more  documents  specification  all  but  right  non  We  necessary  also  amendment  through  information  based  patents  translations  applicant  would  so  amendments  ex  possible  high  rights  foreign  following  time  said  scope  re  end  rejection  without  business  English  obtained  form  prepared  cases  Therefore  out  skill  quality  example  many  during  prosecution  do  clients  substantial  stage  usually  firm  response  translation  some  where  ep  clear  obtain  original  later  make  side  had  document  construction  basic  they  her  specifications  firms  per  applicants  am  work  always  addition  arguments  attorneys  drafted  often  nor  cover  submitted  times  useful  listed  There  specific  draft  highly  desired  change  exam  done  Consequently  able  amend  language  late  up  over  reject  minor  most  skills  submit  help  special  offices  abilities  man  list  low  logical  might  rather  red  redraft  prosecutions  protective  considerable  great  examples  evaluating  esteemed  evaluate  ed  find  invent  attorney  believe  inform  check  changes  suppose  Especially  works  way 

Utility Models

Q1. What are the differences between a patent and a utility model in Japan? 

A1.  The utility model system in Japan like in other countries having this system is for protecting minor innovations which are often called “small inventions”.

The distinct features of the utility model system are:  

     that a utility model registration is only for protecting “devices” related to shape or construction of articles or combination of articles (in other words, other inventions, such as methods, chemical compounds and pharmaceuticals, cannot be protected under utility model act);

     that a utility model is registered without substantive examination; and

     that a duration of a registered utility model is only 10 years from the filing date of the utility model application.

Differences between a patent and a utility model are summarized in the following Table.

  Patent Utility Model
Subject of protection Devices, methods, chemical compounds, etc. Devices related to shape or construction of articles or combination of articles (Methods, chemical compounds, etc. cannot be protected)
Application documents required Specification including Claims and Abstract; and, if any, Drawing(s) (optional) Specification including Claims and Abstract; and Drawing(s) (not omissible)
Substantive examination Request for Examination must be filed within 3 years from the filing date No substantive examination; Registered when basic formal requirements are fulfilled
Time period required for registration Possibly, several years from filing of the Request for Examination About 4-6 months from the filing date
Duration of protection 20 years from the filing date (may be extended in some cases) 10 years from the filing date (non-extensible)
Enforcement of right Enforceable based on granted patent Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion” is necessary for enforcing the utility model right

 

Q2. What is a “Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion”?

A2.  The Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion is an assessment report about the registrability (novelty, inventive step, etc.) of a utility model application or a registered utility model.  This report is prepared by an Examiner of the Japan Patent Office upon request and payment of official fees.  Anyone (that is, not only the Applicant of the utility model, but also any third party) can validly file a request for the Report.

As explained in item “A1” above, a utility model is registered without a substantive examination.  In this connection, for an owner of a utility model to enforce the utility model right against an infringer, firstly, a warning accompanied by the Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion must be sent to the infringer.  Therefore, the above-mentioned Report is necessary for instituting an infringement suit in Japan.

Q3. Is it possible to convert a patent application into a utility model application?

A3.  Yes.  Conversion of a patent application into a utility model application is allowed if an appropriate step is taken within 3 months (for Applicants residing in Japan) or 4 months (for Applicants residing outside Japan) from the mailing date of the Decision for Rejection, or within nine years and six months from the filing date of the patent application, whichever expires earlier.  Such a converted utility model application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original patent application, and the original patent application is deemed to be withdrawn.

Q4. Is it possible to convert a utility model application into a patent application?

A4.  Yes.  Conversion of a utility model application (or a registered utility model resulting therefrom) into a patent application is allowed if an appropriate step is taken within 3 years from the filing date of the utility model application.  However, it should be noted that such conversion is not allowed after the applicant (or an assignee) has filed a request for the above-mentioned Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion, or after a 30-day period has passed from the date of a first official notice advising that a third party has filed a request for the Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion.  Such a converted patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original utility model application, and the original utility model application is deemed to be withdrawn.  (Such a converted patent application cannot be converted back into a utility model application.)

タグ:

application  or  be  patent  Japan  an  Patent  not  filing  with  filed  period  Office  date  Examination  at  Request  one  art  rce  invention  after  any  has  grant  request  above  examination  utility  Rejection  epo  file  report  only  case  within  such  other  into  may  months  model  system  we  documents  should  method  under  between  mentioned  related  all  but  right  small  having  non  must  necessary  also  Decision  third  Report  there  registered  Application  based  A2  requirement  A1  applicant  step  against  Utility  so  ex  about  possible  following  What  registration  required  re  fee  granted  month  years  end  without  residing  However  Q2  Q1  party  cannot  Applicant  form  Applicants  prepared  cases  etc  Therefore  out  including  first  Technical  Ex  Examiner  Yes  allowed  differences  do  year  Q3  A3  conversion  requirements  formal  Method  some  ep  articles  protection  benefit  original  side  upon  Claim  infringement  like  Model  Q4  Opinion  article  document  distinct  difference  Reg  construction  A4  device  assignee  warning  Specification  combination  Such  country  basic  countries  notice  outside  extended  her  per  Table  am  inventions  item  inventive  Claims  back  his  result  often  order  nor  noted  novelty  payment  converted  valid  vice  words  compounds  require  ratio  deemed  ability  appropriate  methods  allow  adding  act  place  official  There  part  six  entitled  feature  fees  explained  extensible  devices  connection  day  ended  cells  exam  chemical  How  Subject  able  late  shape  up  own  omissible  minor  protected  protecting  novel  substantive  therefrom  taken  take  note  Re  mailing  accompanied  low  mm  red  passed  Mode  fr  fulfilled  force  convert  ed  earlier  invent  infringer  called  validly  Abstract  Drawing  Dr  suit  try  An  withdrawn  Conversion  Devices  several  Any  Difference 


お問い合わせ

Share | rss
ホームページ制作