what

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 

米国での審査における実施可能性、新規性、非自明性の判断基準について

米国での審査通知への回答書において米国代理人が米国審査基準(MPEP)に参照して実施可能性・新規性・非自明性の法律的基準について述べた説明で、原則的な部分を理解する上で参考になるものがありましたので、多少補足を加えた上で、以下に紹介します。参考までに、英語と日本語訳文の両方を併記します。

Legal Standard for Enablement(実施可能性の法律的基準について)

The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that "the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without 'undue experimentation'." In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).(連邦巡回裁判所はたびたび、以下の趣旨の判断を示してきた:「明細書は、当業者が『過度な実験』を行なうことなく本発明の全範囲を実現して使用するための方法を教示しなければならない」)

Nevertheless, not everything necessary to practice the invention need be disclosed. In fact, what is well-known is best omitted. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991).(しかし、発明の実施に必要な全てを開示する必要はない。実際、周知のものは省略しても構わない。)

All that is necessary is that one skilled in the art be able to practice the claimed invention, given the level of knowledge and skill in the art. Further the scope of enablement must only bear a "reasonable correlation" to the scope of the claims. See, e.g., In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970).(必要なことは、当業界の知識と技術の水準に鑑みて、クレームされた発明を当業者が実施できるように記載されていることだけである。)

As concerns the breadth of a claim relevant to enablement, the only relevant concern should be whether the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1236, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971).(実施可能性との関連におけるクレームの広さについては、明細書の開示により当業者に提供された実施可能性と、クレームが要求する保護の範囲とが一致していさえすればよい。) How a teaching is set forth, by specific example or broad terminology, is not important. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223-24 169 USPQ 367, 370 (CCPA 1971).(教示の記載の仕方については、どのように記載されていても構わず、具体的実施態様による記載でもよいし、広い用語による記載でもよい。)

Legal Standard for Determining Anticipation(新規性判断の法律的基準について)

"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).(クレームに記載される全ての要素が明示的または潜在的に単一の先行技術文献に記載されている場合にのみ、クレームの新規性が欠如する。)

"When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (クレームが複数の構造や組成物を含む場合には、複数の構造または複数の組成物のいずれか1でも先行技術文献に記載されているならば、クレームの新規性が欠如する。)

"The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989).(クレームされるものと詳細まで完全に一致する発明が示されていることが必要である)

The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).(クレームが要求する通りに要素が配置されていることが必要であるが、用語が同一である必要はない。)

Legal Standard for Prima Facie Obviousness (一応の自明性の判断の法律的基準について)

MPEP § 2141 sets forth the guidelines in determining obviousness. First, the Examiner has to take into account the factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), which has provided the controlling framework for an obviousness analysis.(MPEP § 2141には、自明性を判断するガイドラインが示されている。審査官は、まず、グラハム事件で採用された事実認定基準(いわゆる、Grahamテスト)を考慮しなければならない。) The four Graham factors are(4つのGrahamテストは以下の通りである):

(a) determining the scope and contents of the prior art(先行技術の範囲と内容を決定すること);

(b) ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims in issue(先行技術と当該クレームとの差を明確にすること);

(c) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art(当業者の技術水準を確定すること); and

(d) evaluating any evidence of secondary considerations(二次的考慮事項の証拠を評価すること). Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).

Second, the Examiner has to provide some rationale for determining obviousness.(次に審査官は、自明性を支持するための何らかの論理付けを提示することが必要である。) MPEP § 2143 sets forth some rationales that were established in the recent decision of KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)(MPEP § 2143には、KSR事件で確立された論理付けが示されている。). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include(自明性を支持するための典型的な論理付けは以下の通りである。):

(a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results(先行技術の要素を公知の方法で組み合わせて予想可能な結果を得ること);

(b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results(ある公知の要素を他の要素で単純に置換して予想可能な結果を得ること);

(c) use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way(公知技術を用いて類似の装置(方法や製品)を同様に改善すること);

(d) applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results(改善可能な状態にある公知の装置(方法や製品)に公知技術を適用して予想可能な結果を得ること);

(e) "obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success(「試みることが自明」-成功するという合理的な期待を持って、特定された予測可能な有限個の解決方法から選択すること);

(f) known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art(ある技術分野において公知のものは、設計上の動機やその他の市場の力に基づいて、同じ技術分野や異なる技術分野で使用するためのバリエーションが当業者によって予測可能であれば、そのようなバリエーションを促すかもしれない。); and

(g) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.(先行技術文献を改変したり先行技術文献の教示を組み合わせてクレームされた発明に到達するように当業者を導いたであろう、先行技術における教示、示唆または動機。)

As the MPEP directs, all claim limitations must be considered in view of the cited prior art in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143.03.(MPEPが示すように、一応の自明性を確立するためには、引用例に鑑みてクレームの全ての限定事項を考慮する必要がある。)

タグ:

米国  クレーム  発明  日本  新規性  記載  必要  明細書  以下  審査  or  be  先行技術  判断  可能  英語  審査官  開示  適用  要求  方法  an  範囲  説明  可能性  not  選択  本発明  with  同様  design  考慮  具体的  日本語  claim  明確  実際  使用  審査通知  同一  特定  公知  先行技術文献  EP  文献  at  技術  one  引用  art  当業者  基準  rce  採用  invention  事件  実験  実施  claims  any  証拠  提供  内容  理解  has  審査基準  prior  非自明性  結果  MPEP  通知  詳細  複数  関連  entity  only  ガイドライン  case  within  solution  決定  参照  代理人  Inter  分野  限定  use  技術分野  other  into  参考  issue  自明性  may  要素  自明  we  should  method  specification  合理的  between  Fed  原則的  事項  results  提示  all  but  right  解決  評価  組成物  類似  must  necessary  same  示唆  用語  趣旨  based  明示的  保護  部分  回答  KSR  obviousness  態様  would  so  欠如  ex  Cir  両方  知識  consideration  practice  製品  required  scope  認定  reasonable  状態  回答書  re  新規性判断  similar  ライン  disclosure  each  end  without  Q2  2d  single  置換  national  教示  完全  Further  identified  法律  装置  公知技術  到達  International  成功  claimed  米国代理人  out  shown  skill  need  周知  一応  example  予測  Ex  USPQ2d  Examiner  期待  skilled  secondary  引用例  either  provide  典型的  当該  テスト  differences  provided  test  裁判所  were  known  very  潜在的  補足  given  some  ep  those  確立  予想  protection  仕方  obtain  structure  make  side  明示  set  ordinary  reason  knowledge  well  include  実施可能  reference  原則  teach  cited  another  difference  device  実施可能性  determining  different  limit  Graham  decision  important  3d  USPQ  動機  her  found  per  elements  element  am  work  whether  apply  technique  product  predictable  実現  支持  term  evidence  enablement  非自明  his  forth  rolling  result  expectation  全範囲  order  事実  紹介  訳文  success  described  disclosed  論理  cover  代理  一致  二次的考慮事項  vice  what  単一  単純  prima  products  contained  composition  require  法律的基準  ratio  改善  Legal  deemed  obvious  number  methods  裁判  act  Second  設計  closed  omitted  less  構造  lines  確定  CCPA  specific  she  facie  facto  field  every  four  due  how  First  技術水準  analysis  devices  予想可能  combine  correlation  組成  certain  exam  established  Federal  How  配置  able  actual  Standard  Obviousness  論理付  view  verbis  variations  show  up  ipsissimis  own  日本語訳  over  多少  now  motivation  support  市場  teaching  take  改変  新規  過度  二次的  予測可能  省略  先行  明細  解決方法  設計上  業界  バリエーション  See  oa  Wright  limitations  account  according  Teleflex  mm  Prima  range  read  rationales  John  relevant  relation  recent  red  framework  fr  full  force  considered  content  hard  considerations  contents  establish  evaluating  everything  ed  experimentation  fact  ip  invent  broad  anticipated  arranged  conclusion  compositions  inherently  All  suggestion  try  Facie  terminology  undue  An  simple  yield  Circuit  sets  several  structures  Deere  way 

《レター(警告状)》

(和英)  (便宜上、個人名、会社名、製品名等は伏せてあります。)

原文:

拝啓 貴社ますますご清栄のこととお慶び申し上げます。 さて、弊社製品Aの採用を検討中の外国の潜在顧客に対してA社は、製品Qは標記特許の侵害に なる旨の警告をしたとの報告に接しました。 標記の権利者でないA社がいかなる権限のもとにかかる 警告をしたのか弊社は知る由もありま せんが、標記特許が現に顧客への脅しに利用されている以上、 貴社のご承諾があってのことと 推量いたします。

英訳文:

Dear Mr. …,We have received a report that company“A” has given a warning to our potential customers in a foreign country who have been considering to use our product “Q”, i.e., a warning that the product“Q” infringes the above-identified patent.  Company”A” is not the proprietor of the above-identified patent, so we have no idea what entitled Company”A” to give such a warning.  However, considering the fact that the above-identified patent has actually been used for threatening our customers, we have to suppose that you have authorized the warning.

PCT National Phase in Japan

Q1. What are the time limits for entering Japanese national phase under PCT Chapters I and II?

A1.  The time limit is 30 months from the earliest priority date (if any) or the international filing date of the PCT application for both Chapters I and II.

Q2. Are Japanese translations of the PCT specification, abstract and drawings necessary for entering the Japanese national phase?

A2.  Yes.  Japanese translations of the PCT specification, abstract and drawings must be filed with the Japan Patent Office.  Further, Japanese translations of amendments under PCT Article 19 and 34 (if any) should be filed with the Japanese translations of the specification, abstract and drawings.

Q3. The time limit for entering Japanese national phase is drawing near but it seems unlikely that a Japanese translation of the PCT specification can be timely prepared.  Does the JPO allow postponement of the filing of the Japanese translation? 

A3.  We can first file a “formal notice of entry into Japanese national phase” by the 30-month deadline for entry into Japanese national phase and, then, file Japanese translations of the PCT specification, abstract and drawings.  The formal notice can be prepared at our end based on the information shown in the cover page of the international publication.  The Japanese translations may be validly filed within 2 months from the date of the filing of the above-mentioned formal notice of entry.  No extra charge is necessary for such delayed filing of the Japanese translations.

Exceptions to Lack of Novelty of Invention

Q1. We understand that Japan has a grace period for avoiding certain public disclosures from constituting prior art against a Japanese application.  How long is this grace period?

A1.  The grace period defined under Article 30 of the Japanese patent law (Exceptions to Lack of Novelty of Invention) is 6 months from the date of public disclosure.

Q2. What type of disclosures is capable of taking advantage of the Exceptions to Lack of Novelty of Invention in Japan?

A2.  According to current Article 30 of the Japanese patent law (effective as of April 1, 2012), virtually any disclosure, including “inventions made public at meetings and seminars, which are not academic conference designated by the Commissioner of the Patent Office, inventions made public on TV and radio, and inventions made public through sales”, are covered by the Exceptions to Lack of Novelty of Invention.  However, a patent publication is not a non-prejudicial disclosure.

Q3. Is the grace period applicable to scientific articles published on the web? 

A3.  The 6-month grace period is also applicable to electronic publications of scientific articles.  When a scientific article is published in the form of an electronic publication in advance to the publication in print, the 6-month grace period will start from the date of the electronic publication.  This rule applies not only to a free electronic publication, but also to an electronic publication which requires registered membership and/or purchase of the publication for accessing the electronic publication.

Q4. An invention has been published as a scientific article and a basic patent application has been filed in the US within 6 months from the publication of the scientific article.  Already 10 months have passed from the publication of the scientific article, but is it still possible to enjoy the benefit of the Japanese 6-month grace period by filing a Japanese patent application claiming the Paris convention priority from the basic US application filed within 6 months from the publication date? 

A4.  No.  Claiming of the Paris convention priority does not allow the filing date in Japan to date back for the purpose of grace period.  In other words, when a basic application is filed in other country within 6 months from the date of public disclosure, and a Japanese patent application claiming the convention priority from the basic application is filed after the expiration of the 6-months grace period, the Japanese patent application cannot enjoy the benefit of the grace period.

For receiving the benefit of the 6-month grace period in Japan, the Applicant must file within the 6-month grace period either one of the following applications:

   (1) Japanese national patent application*, or

   (2) PCT application designating Japan as one of the designated states. 

* Either a Japanese patent application or a PCT application claiming the convention priority from this Japanese patent application can be filed after the expiration of the grace period and still enjoy the benefit of the grace period.

Q5. What are the steps necessary for obtaining the benefit of the Japanese 6-month grace period?  

A5.  Necessary steps are explained separately for Japanese national patent application and PCT application.

Japanese national patent application:

A patent application is filed simultaneously with a Request for Grace Period within 6 months from the date of public disclosure.  Alternatively, the Request may be omitted by stating such effect in the patent application.

Next, a Document Verifying the Request, which is signed by all applicants, is filed within 30 days from the filing date of the patent application.  Filing of a specific evidence material (such as a copy of the scientific article disclosing the invention) is not required, but it is most advisable to file the evidence material with the Document.

PCT application designating Japan:

When a PCT application designating Japan as one of the designated states is filed within the 6 month grace period, such a PCT application will obtain the benefit of the grace period even when the PCT application enters the Japanese national phase after the expiration of the grace period (i.e., within non-extensible 30 month deadline).  In this case, both the Request for Grace Period and the Document Verifying the Request are filed within 30 days from the entry into the Japanese national phase. 

[Filing of the Request for Grace Period can be omitted when “Declaration as to Non-Prejudicial Disclosures or Exceptions to Lack of Novelty” (PCT Rule 4.17(v), 26ter.1) is made at the international stage.]

The Document Verifying the Request can be prepared at our end and forwarded for execution by the applicant(s). 

タグ:

PCT  application  or  be  patent  Japan  an  Patent  Japanese  not  filing  with  design  filed  claim  period  Office  date  at  Request  one  art  invention  after  any  has  prior  applications  grace  file  only  been  case  within  such  other  into  may  months  phase  will  priority  we  under  made  all  but  Article  non  law  must  We  necessary  also  inter  through  registered  A2  Art  A1  applicant  Rule  step  against  type  Novelty  both  so  ex  effective  possible  following  What  required  even  steps  re  month  publication  disclosure  end  However  Declaration  Q2  Q1  cannot  Applicant  national  April  form  prepared  long  Disclosure  claiming  including  Invention  international  rule  simultaneously  state  public  Ex  covered  either  do  Grace  Q3  does  A3  days  stage  ep  articles  obtain  benefit  Period  Claim  material  Q4  expiration  designated  article  electronic  scientific  A4  Filing  deadline  country  basic  her  per  Document  applicants  inventions  back  entry  evidence  his  Lack  convention  designating  members  cover  Exceptions  understand  web  words  Non  Next  require  defined  ratio  allow  omitted  specific  she  states  start  explained  extensible  execution  applies  day  enjoy  certain  capable  How  According  advantage  able  Verifying  requires  separate  up  isa  over  published  most  purpose  forwarded  taking  Re  Q5  academic  low  mm  meetings  read  publications  red  passed  Paris  free  fr  current  copy  effect  ed  disclosures  fine  ip  invent  applicable  try  A5  An  Claiming  separately  signed  still 

Change of Applicant of a Pending Patent Application

Q1. What are the documents necessary for changing the applicant of a pending Japanese application?

A1.  For recordal of a new applicant at the Japan Patent Office, we need an Assignment from the original applicant (assignor) to assign a part or whole of the right to obtain patent to the new applicant (assignee).  Specifically, the following documents must be filed with the Japan Patent Office:

   (1) An executed assignment simply signed by both parties (the assignor and the assignee), in which the full names and titles of the representatives of the assignor and the assignee should be clearly indicated.

   (2) A power of attorney executed by the assignee.

Neither notarization nor legalization of documents (1) and (2) are required.  These documents may be prepared at our end and forwarded for execution by the assignor and the assignee.

Q2. Does the Japan Patent Office issue an official certificate for the recordal of a new applicant?

A2.  No certificate is issued by the Japan Patent Office.  Recordal of a new applicant can be confirmed by checking the patent database.


お問い合わせ

Share | rss
ホームページ制作