Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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.

Published byAlban Little Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:

1 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 Onuki AIPLA Annual Meeting IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting Seminar

2 Disclaimer The views expressed in this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JPAA or the author’s firm. This presentation is for general informational purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice. 2 2014.10 (AIPLA)

3  Trend of Determination on Inventive Step -Based on analysis by JPAA Patent Commission- October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court3

4 Patentee Success Rate in Invalidation Appeals (Trials) in the Japan Patent Office (JPO) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court4 The Dark Age

5 Applicant Success Rate in Litigations Rescinding Ex parte Trial Decisions from the JPO October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court5 The Dark Age

6 Trend of Determination on Inventive Step October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court6  2002-2008 ： The Dark Ages against pro-patent trend on determination of Inventiveness  Harsh Judgments for Applicants / Patentees  Negating inventiveness based on a well known art without teachings in the prior art (Tokyo High Court, 1997 (Gyo-ke)86) Reference 1 A+B Reference 2 C Invention A+B+C No Inventive Step

7 October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court7  2008-2009 ： Turning Period  Moderating the tough level on inventive step Trend of Determination on Inventive Step  Creating a test for weighing motivation to combine the prior art to reach the claimed invention (IP High Court, 2008(Gyo-ke)10096 ） Reference 1 A+B Reference 2 C Invention A+B+C No motivation to Combine In Reference 1 or 2

8 How to Evaluate Inventiveness October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court8 Part 1 Part 2

9 How to Evaluate Inventiveness (part 1) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court9 YES

10 Determining the Scope of the Claimed Invention (Step 1) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court10  Patent Office  Tends to determine the scope of the claimed invention without reference to the description of the specification  IP High Court  Tends to interpret the meaning of the claim terms with reference to the description of the specification (2007(Gyo-ke)10389, 2008 (Gyo- ke) 10338)

11 How to Evaluate Inventiveness (part 1) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court11

12 Determining the Scope of the Prior Art Invention (Step 2) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court12  Patent Office  Tends to broadly determine the scope of the prior art invention with reference to the common knowledge in addition to the disclosure in the prior art  IP High Court  Tends to narrowly determine the scope of the prior art invention with the emphasis on relation between problems to be solved and means for solving the problems (2010(Gyo-ke)10407, 2010(Gyo-ke)10405 ）

13 How to Evaluate Inventiveness (part 2) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court13

14 Well-known Art (Step 5) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court14  Patent Office  Tends to negate inventive step on combining the prior art with the well-known art through abstract determination on: (i)the structure of the well-known art, (ii)the scope of the well-known art, and (iii) the technical field of the prior art  IP High Court  Tends to affirm inventive step through concretely and minutely determining the above (i)-(iii) and judging as to whether there is any motivation to combine the inventions (2008(Gyo-ke) 10209, 2011(Gyo-ke) 10214 ）

15 How to Evaluate Inventiveness (part 2) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court15

16 Teaching Away (Step 7) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court16  Patent Office  Tends to broadly determine the scope of the prior art invention through abstract determination on: (i) the meaning of the prior invention, (ii) its concrete structure, (iii) operation, (iv)purpose/problems, (v)preconditions, (vi)the prior art to the prior invention, (vii)the common knowledge of filing date, and (viii)determination of differences  IP High Court  Tends to affirm inventive step by minutely and concretely determining the above (i)-(viii) and finding teachings away from the claim to affirm inventive step (2011(Gyo-ke)10022, 2008(Gyo-ke)10431)

17 How to Evaluate Inventiveness (part 2) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court17

18 Design Choice (Step 8) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court18  Patent Office  Tends to broadly determine through abstract finding: (i)claimed invention, (ii)purpose in claimed invention for adopting its specific structure, and (iii) purpose in claimed invention for adopting its specific structure, determine differences between the claimed invention and the prior invention as a design choice to negate inventive step  IP High Court  Tends to affirm inventive step by minutely and concretely determining the above (i)-(iii) and finding the difference not design choice to affirm inventive step (2011(Gyo- ke)10171, 2009(Gyo-ke)10289)

19 How to Evaluate Inventiveness (part 2) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court19

20 Analogy in Technical Field (Step 6-1) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court20  Patent Office  Tends to jump to a conclusion that the prior art combinable without considering it or interpreting the technical field broadly  IP High Court  Tends to interpret the technical field narrowly:  Affirming inventive step even though the prior art is in the same technical field if there are some differences in problems to be solved, means for solving the problems, operations/functions, or technical ideas (2010(Gyo-ke)10345, 2008(Gyo-ke)10305 ）  Affirming inventive step when the technical fields are different (2011(Gyo-ke)10021, 2010(Gyo-ke)10298)

21 How to Evaluate Inventiveness (part 2) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court21

22 Analogy in Problems to be Solved (Step 6-2) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court22  Patent Office  Tends to negate inventive step by combining the prior art without looking at the problems to be solved  IP High Court  Tends to affirm inventive step focusing on differences in problems to be solved (2011(Gyo-ke) 0214, 2008(Gyo-ke)10305)

23 How to Evaluate Inventiveness (part 2) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court23

24 Analogy in Operations/Functions (Step 6-3) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court24  Patent Office  Tends to negate inventive step by merely combining teachings in the prior art without considering operations or functions  IP High Court  Tends to value operations or functions in association with problems to be solved and technical ideas (2011(Gyo-ke) 10269, 2010(Gyo- ke)10405)

25 How to Evaluate Inventiveness (part 2) October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court25

26 Teachings in the Prior Art (Step 6-4) -Combination- October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court26  Patent Office  Tends to determine replacing the primary reference with the secondary one as it could have easily been thought of where technical fields or operations are analogous  IP High Court  Tends to affirm inventive step unless the prior art teaches suggestions or motivations to replace the element (2011(Gyo-ke)10022, 2010(Gyo-ke)10021)

27 Teachings in the Prior Art (Step 6-4) -Analogy in Technical Field- October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court27  Patent Office  Tends to determine a technical field of the prior art the same where the technical field is the same in a broader concept  IP High Court  Tends to affirm inventive step where the technical fields are different in a strict meaning even if the same in the broader concept (2010(Gyo-ke)10237, 2009(Gyo- ke)10330)

28 Teachings in the Prior Art (Step 6-4) -Numerical Limitations- October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court28  Patent Office  Tends to regard choices in numerical ranges as mere a design choice without teachings in the prior art  IP High Court  Tends to affirm inventive step unless the numerical range is commonly used without teaching of the technical idea for the numerical limitation (2008(Gyo-ke)10300, 2009(Gyo-ke)10134)

29 Trend of Determination on Inventive Step Add-up October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court29  Determination level on inventive step has been moderated recently in both the JPO and IP High Court  IP High Court tends to take a more generous approach for determination on inventive step than the JPO Inventive Crane No Inventive Zone

30 Any Questions? Thank you for your kind attention Toshifumi Onuki TMI Associates tonuki@tmi.gr.jp October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court30

31  Statistics October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court31

32 Litigations Rescinding Trial Decisions from the JPO Ex parte cases vs. Inter parte cases October 21, 2014 Ex parte Inter parte Update on IP High Court32 20102011201220132014 About 60% About 40%

33 Litigations Rescinding Inter Parte Trial Decisions Annual Case Transition October 21, 2014 2010201120122013 Other reasons Inventive Step Update on IP High Court33

34 Litigations Rescinding Ex Parte Trial Decisions Annual Case Transition October 21, 2014 2010201120122013 Update on IP High Court34 Other reasons Inventive Step

35 Litigations Rescinding Inter Parte Trial Decisions Favorable Rate for Patentees October 21, 2014 Adverse to patentees Favorable to patentees Update on IP High Court35 20102011201220132014 JPO’s invalidation decision dismissed by IP High Court JPO’s validation decision rescinded by IP High Court JPO’s invalidation decision rescinded by IP High Court JPO’s validation decision dismissed by IP High Court

36 Litigations Rescinding Ex Parte Trial Decisions Favorable Rate for Applicants October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court36 20102011201220132014 Adverse to applicants Favorable to applicants

37 Litigations Rescinding Inter Parte Trial Decisions Favorable Rate per IP Division October 21, 2014 20102011201220132014 Update on IP High Court37 1 st Div. 2 nd Div. 3 rd Div. 4 th Div.

38 Summary October 21, 2014 Update on IP High Court38  Appeal cases from Decisions by the JPO  About 60% of the cases are Ex parte litigations  About 40% of the cases are Inter parte litigations  Rate has remained steadily  Favorable Litigation Rate for Patent/Application Owners  Litigations Rescinding Ex Parte Trial Decisions  Fluctuated from 17% to 40% between Divisions in IP High Court  Around 24% Average in 2013  Litigations Rescinding Inter Parte Trial Decisions  Fluctuated from 61% to 71% between Divisions in IP High Court  Around 65% Average in 2013

Download ppt "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."

Similar presentations

Recent Developments in Inventiveness in Japan Shimako Kato Abe, Ikubo & Katayama 1.

Recent Developments in Inventiveness in Japan Shimako Kato Abe, Ikubo & Katayama 1.
Comparison between JP & US new patent systems - First (inventor) to file, exception to loss of novelty, and grace period - NOBUTAKA YOKOTA KYOWA PATENT.

Comparison between JP & US new patent systems - First (inventor) to file, exception to loss of novelty, and grace period - NOBUTAKA YOKOTA KYOWA PATENT.
 1 IP High Court Case Review Finding of Invention Disclosed in Cited Prior Art in Finding Non-Inventive Step Pre-Meeting AIPLA Mid-Winter Meeting January.

 1 IP High Court Case Review Finding of Invention Disclosed in Cited Prior Art in Finding Non-Inventive Step Pre-Meeting AIPLA Mid-Winter Meeting January.
The German Experience: Patent litigation and nullification cases

The German Experience: Patent litigation and nullification cases
1 Examination Standard of Inventive Step in Taiwan Tony C. H. Lin Patent Attorney APAA Taiwan Group Lee and Li, Attorneys-at-Law November 18, 2007 in Adelaide.

1 Examination Standard of Inventive Step in Taiwan Tony C. H. Lin Patent Attorney APAA Taiwan Group Lee and Li, Attorneys-at-Law November 18, 2007 in Adelaide.
© 2005 Morrison & Foerster LLP All Rights Reserved Offense as Defense in U.S. Patent Litigation Anthony L. Press Maximizing IP Seminar October 31, 2005.

© 2005 Morrison & Foerster LLP All Rights Reserved Offense as Defense in U.S. Patent Litigation Anthony L. Press Maximizing IP Seminar October 31, 2005.
1 1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association USPTO Updates Including Glossary Pilot Program Chris Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. IP Practice.

1 1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association USPTO Updates Including Glossary Pilot Program Chris Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. IP Practice.
Speeding It Up at the USPTO July 2013 July 23, 2013.

Speeding It Up at the USPTO July 2013 July 23, 2013.
JPO’s Reliance on Experimental Results in Patent Applications -From the Aspect of Requirements for Description of Claims and Specification- JPAA International.

JPO’s Reliance on Experimental Results in Patent Applications -From the Aspect of Requirements for Description of Claims and Specification- JPAA International.
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.

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.
* Statements of fact and opinions expressed are those of the speaker individually and are not the opinion or position of Research In Motion Limited or.

* Statements of fact and opinions expressed are those of the speaker individually and are not the opinion or position of Research In Motion Limited or.
Determining Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex TC3600 Business Methods January 2008.

Determining Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex TC3600 Business Methods January 2008.
by Eugene Li Summary of Part 3 – Chapters 8, 9, and 10

by Eugene Li Summary of Part 3 – Chapters 8, 9, and 10
2015 AIPLA IP Practice in Europe Committee June, 2015 Phil Swain Foley Hoag LLP Boston, MA - USA The Effect of Alice v CLS Bank on patent subject matter.

2015 AIPLA IP Practice in Europe Committee June, 2015 Phil Swain Foley Hoag LLP Boston, MA - USA The Effect of Alice v CLS Bank on patent subject matter.
JPAA International Activities Center Nobuo Sekine

JPAA International Activities Center Nobuo Sekine
By Paul J. Lee. Disclaimer The opinions and views expressed in these materials are not necessarily those of DexCom and reflect only the personal views.

By Paul J. Lee. Disclaimer The opinions and views expressed in these materials are not necessarily those of DexCom and reflect only the personal views.
Copyright, Fair Use, and Derivative Works

Copyright, Fair Use, and Derivative Works
AIPLA Annual Meeting 2014 Corporate Breakfast Stephen E. Bondura Dority & Manning, P.A. October 23, 2014 Preserving Privilege in Prosecution Matters 1.

AIPLA Annual Meeting 2014 Corporate Breakfast Stephen E. Bondura Dority & Manning, P.A. October 23, 2014 Preserving Privilege in Prosecution Matters 1.
Promotion for SMEs under Japanese Patent Policy Eiichi Yamamoto Patent Information Policy Planning Office Japan Patent Office.

Promotion for SMEs under Japanese Patent Policy Eiichi Yamamoto Patent Information Policy Planning Office Japan Patent Office.
PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology Week 7 Dr. Tal.

PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology Week 7 Dr. Tal.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google