Description

    2009/12/12
      On the Web of MITI described on 8th December were several points of PATENT SYSTEM issues.
    This is the report of the private workshop of the Commissioner of Patent Office. This workshop was opened in January this year. And these issues were discussed 9 times.
    Discussed were acceleration of Patent utility , international harmonization of patent systems and improvement of Law system for user-friendliness of SMEs and academies etc.

Description

    2009/12/20
      In the above mentioned report, institutional design was examined containing alteration of Patent Law. One of issues is adopting provisional application system asked by universities or SMEs. The system enabling easy and convienient applications in the field of biology and environment has been required , for Patent applications of these fields are in particular necessary to be quickly examined and granted patent. The private workshop of the Commissioner of Patent Office presents the possibility of realization this by combination of the present Patent Law and loosening application requirements on PLT treatment instead of altering the present Patent Law .

Description

    2010/01/13
      I heard from the Chief Jugde of Intellectual Property High Court. The validity of a patent depends on the relation between the fact that invention has(hereinafter called A) and the other fact known by public prior to the filing time of A's patent application (hereinafter called B). A is not related to the fact how A was processed and completed actually. B is considered to be the nearest fact to A in technical ideas. If A is not figured out easily from B by being considered by the specific imaginary person in that field, A is granted to be patented. Therefore the difference between A and B in technical ideas is regarded. As for litigation against a ruling to a trial decision of examiner's decision of refusal, judges of Intellectual Property High Court make judgment about the followings.
    1. Rightness and Wrongness of recognition of A by Patent Office
    2. Rightness and Wrongness of recognition of B by Patent Office
    3. Rightness and Wrongness of Patent Office's recognition that A is considered from B easily by the specific imaginary person (a person with ordinary skill in the technical field) in that field

    A judge of Intellectual Property High Court examines these points elaborately and precisely. He determines the rightness of the trial decision depending upon only his free mind except for Law. He sould not be obliged by anyone and anything but Law. For example the examination criteria of Patent Office should not affect the decision. And judicial precedent also could not finally determine his final decision. He makes a decision depending on only his free conviction. A judge has mission of conducting the conclusion balancing private profit by a patent and the restriction of public benefit by the patent, considering the development of whole industry. And our role in this field is concerned in making invention visible in description, filing of application of right, intermediate treatment of obtaining right and strengthening the right, to bring up client's invention to be valid right for client's business. Finally if our work affects the directional arrow of examination of Patent Office and also conclusin of IP High Court, that will be our most pleasure.