Cabinet Approval of Cabinet Order for Amending Part of Patent Law Enforcement Order Etc.

On December 24, 2008, the Japan patent office (JPO) announced a cabinet approval of “Cabinet Order for Amending Part of Patent Law Enforcement Order Etc.”

Along with the introduction of a scheme in which a part of information of a non-exclusive license etc. is supposed to be undisclosed and a registration system for provisional exclusive licenses and provisional non-exclusive licenses, this cabinet order provides types of information etc. supposed to be undisclosed, and a procedure etc. for registration for a provisional non-exclusive license etc.

[Promulgation Date]
December 26, 2008

[Enforcement Date]
April 1, 2009

[Outline]
(1) It is stipulated that undisclosed items of information of a non-exclusive license etc. are the name of a non-exclusive licensee, the name of a provisional non-exclusive licensee, the scope of a non-exclusive license, and the scope of a provisional non-exclusive license.

(2) Establishment of a registration system for provisional exclusive licenses and provisional non-exclusive licenses.

(3) The item regarding reasonable value is deleted from items on a request for registration for an exclusive license and a non-exclusive license.

JPO Homepage
http://www.jpo.go.jp/torikumi/kaisei/kaisei2/tokkyo_kaisei_seirei.htm

Enforcement Date of Law for Partial Amendment to Patent Law Etc. (2008)

On December 24, 2008, the Japan patent office (JPO) announced a cabinet approval of “Cabinet Order That Provides Enforcement Date of Part of Law for Partial Amendment to Patent Law Etc.”

[Enforcement Date]
April 1, 2009

[Subject Items]
Among items to be revised, subjected to the enforcement are the following items, which are supposed to be enforced on that date provided by a cabinet order which is not later than one year from the promulgation date.

(1) Revision of the registration system for non-exclusive licenses, etc. (establishment of a provisional exclusive license system and a provisional non-exclusive license system; establishment of a registration system for provisional exclusive licenses and provisional non-exclusive licenses; and restriction on disclosure of description of registration for a non-exclusive license and a provisional non-exclusive license).

(2) Expansion of a period for demanding an appeal against examiner’s decision of refusal.

(3) Expansion of countries that can participate in electronic exchange of priority documents.

JPO Homepage
http://www.jpo.go.jp/torikumi/kaisei/kaisei2/tokkyo_kaisei_kijitu.htm

Introduction of Common Application Format

As for application for patent and utility model registration as from January 1, 2009, acceptance of an application using a common application format to which Trilateral Offices; the JPO, the EPO and the USPTO agreed is to be commenced, according to JPO. The common application format allows filing of an application with any of Trilateral Offices. In the format, headings to be described in a specification or a description are added, and heading titles, the heading order and the order of filing documents, including a specification or a description are changed. With regard to PCT application, the application itself using the common application format is to be commenced as from January 1, 2009, while on-line application compatible with the common application format is to be accepted as from the end of March 2009.

For further details of the common application format, refer to the following JPO website.
Japan Patent Office
http://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki/t_tokkyo/shutsugan/kyoutsusyutugan.htm
The Website of the Trilateral Co-operation
http://www.trilateral.net/news/20080425/index.php

Online application software will be available for information statement system

Online procedure by use of online application software will be available on and after January 1, 2009, for submitting information regarding an application for patent or utility model registration, in addition to a conventional way of submitting paper documents, including prior art documents.
The number of the submission has been increasing in recent years. By providing the online way to submit the information, Japan Patent Office hopes to further promote the use of the information statement system.

As compared with the case of submitting paper documents, the online procedure is advantageous in that the information is immediately provided for the Examiner, and moreover, the submission of the information, including prior art information, can be confirmed by receiving a receipt.
However, with the online procedure, only 10 or less PDF files can be attached.

For more detail, visit the Japan Patent Office website below.
The Japan Patent Office website

http://www.jpo.go.jp/seido/s_tokkyo/internet_syutugan_online_kaisi.htm

Enforcement of Registration System of Certain Non-Exclusive License

Since October 1, 2008, the Patent Office has received applications for a registration system of certain non-exclusive license. The registration system of certain non-exclusive license was established by the law amending a part of laws such as the Special Measures Law concerning regeneration of industrial dynamism.
The registration system of certain non-exclusive license is a special exceptional system to the requirements of perfection of licensing a non-exclusive license based on patent, utility model registration, or exclusive license thereof, against a third party. The registration system of certain non-exclusive license is stipulated in the Special Measures Law concerning regeneration of industrial dynamism. The registration system protects a business activity of a non-exclusive license holder. The business activity thus protected is based on a licensing agreement on non-exclusive license (comprehensive licensing agreement) in which any particular patent number or utility model registration number, a licensed object of non-exclusive license, of patent is not specified. In the registration system of certain non-exclusive license, the non-exclusive license holder is allowed to have perfection against the third party (Special Measures Law concerning regeneration of industrial dynamism, Section 58) by registering, in the original register of certain non-exclusive license registration, non-exclusive license issued by the “licensing agreement on certain non-exclusive license” (Special Measures Law concerning regeneration of industrial dynamism, Section 2(xx)).

The Patent Office Home page
http://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki/touroku/tokuteitujyojissikenseido.htm

Super Accelerated Examination to Commence on October 1, 2008

On October 1, 2008, the Japan Patent Office will commence super accelerated examination, in which applications are examined much speedier than the existing accelerated examination.

Examination Speed
In the existing accelerated examination, in 2007, it takes approximately 2.2 months to receive a first examination result. In the super accelerated examination, in contrast, it takes one month or shorter to receive a first examination result. An applicant (a representative) has one month or shorter (two months or shorter for foreign residents) to respond to the first examination result. It takes one month or shorter from the response to a second examination result.

Eligible Applications (Requirements) for Super Accelerated Examination in Trial Period (1) A Request for Examination has been filed.
(2) None of the following notices have been received by an applicant: a Notification of Reasons for Refusal, a copy of a Decision to Grant a Patent, a Notice of Violation of Obligation to Disclose Prior Art Documents, and a Directive for Consultation issued in the case of identical inventions and simultaneously-filed applications thereof.
(3) An application must “apply to a working related application and to an application filed with the JPO and at least one foreign IP office” (a requirement of the existing accelerated examination).
(4) After an application of the super accelerated examination, all the proceedings of an application must be processed online.
(5) An application must not be that application under PCT which has been transferred from the international phase to the national phase in Japan.

Cases Where Application Is Excluded from Super Accelerated Examination
(1) A case where proceedings other than online proceedings arise after an application of the super accelerated examination.
(2) A case where there is an error in formality etc. in the proceedings with the JPO after the application of the super accelerated examination.
(3) A case where there is no response from an applicant within 30 days (within two months for foreign residents) from the mailing date of a Notification of Reasons for Refusal.
(4) A case where, as to a divisional application, there is no explanation etc. saying that substantial requirements for the division are satisfied, in a Written Statement or in an Explanation of Circumstances Concerning Accelerated Examination.

Note
(1) When an application for super accelerated examination is filed, the application is subjected to consideration as to whether or not the application should be dealt in super accelerated examination. Therefore, all the applications for super accelerated examination are not always subjected to super accelerated examination.
(2) Postponement of a time limit for responding to an office action results in exclusion from super accelerated examination.
(3) It is required to complete before the application of super accelerated examination proceedings involving filing of a document such as a General Power of Attorney.

JPO Homepage
http://www.jpo.go.jp/torikumi/t_torikumi/souki/supersoukisinsa.htm(Japanese)
Information on the first patent granted under super accelerated examination system
http://www.jpo.go.jp/rireki_e/index.htm (English)

Current Trend Of Business Related Invention

On September 19, 2008, the Patent Office released a report on a current trend of business related inventions. According to an examination status of the business related invention, a rate at which a patent is granted to a business related invention has been remarkably lower as compared to rates in other fields of invention, and Office Action has been issued to an appeal against examiner’s decision of refusal at higher rate.

(Application trend of business related invention)

Year	Number of application
2000	Approx 19,600
2001	Approx 19,000
2002	Approx 13,000
2003	Approx 10,000
2004	Approx 9,000
2005	Approx 8,400
2006	Approx 7,000

(Application trend per technical field of business related invention)
The number of application has been decreased in technical fields (payment×settlement, finance×insurance, management, service business, etc.) in which a business related invention itself is a main feature in application (*1). In particular, the number of application has been remarkably decreased in a filed of e-commerce.

(*1) Application to which an FI classification of the followings is given as a main filed: G06F15/20@G,N,R; G06F15/20,102; G06F15/21; G06F15/24 - G06F15/30; G06F15/42; G06F17/6.

(Application trend per applicant group of business related invention)
In 2002 through 2006, the number of application was continuously decreased in major applicant companies as well as in other applicants.

(Examination status of business related invention)
Since 2000, a rate of decision of patent has been decreased in the application filed where the business related invention itself is a main feature. The rate of decision of patent was 8% (average of all fields is approximately 50%) in 2003 through 2006 and 15% in 2007.
Office Action has been more likely to be issued to the application. However, an appeal against such Office Action has been rarely demanded.

http://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki/t_tokkyo/bijinesu/biz_pat.htm

Japan Patent Office Annual Report 2008

The　JPO　announced “Japan Patent Office Annual Report 2008” in English on September 19, 2008. This Report, which is based on the one released in Japanese on June 27, 2008, consists of 5 parts as follows;

(ⅰ) Trends of Industrial Property Rights
Chapter 1 Circumstances of Application and Registration and Current Status of Examination and Appeals/Trials at Home and Abroad

(ⅱ) Government Efforts in Intellectual Property Activities
Chapter 1 Efforts for Overall Intellectual Property
Chapter 2 Efforts Related to Ptents
Chapter 3 Efforts Related to Design
Chapter 4 Efforts Related to Trademark
Chapter 5 Efforts Related to Appeals and Trials
Chapter 6 Legal Amendment in 2008

(ⅲ) Measures for Private Companies and Universities
Chapter 1 Support for SMEs
Chapter 2 Support for Universities
Chapter 3 Support for Patent Utilization
Chapter 4 Support for Activities through Information Technology
Chapter 5 Development of Human Resources Related to Intellectual Property

(ⅳ) International Trends and Efforts
Chapter 1 International Trends and Efforts Relating to Patents
Chapter 2 International Trends and Efforts Relating to Designs
Chapter 3 International Trends and Efforts Relating to Trademarks
Chapter 4 International Efforts to Protect Intellectual Property

(ⅴ) Statistical Data

Link: JPO website
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou_e/toushin_e/kenkyukai_e/annual_report2008.htm

Guidelines concerning the time limit for requesting appeals, in case of the applicant being overseas resident, under the 2008 revised Patent Act

In regard to the time limit for requesting an appeal against examiner’s decision of refusal (in regard to patent, design, and trademark) and an appeal against examiner’s decision to dismiss amendment (in regard to design and trademark), which is one of the revised matters of Patent Act and the like, the current time limit of 30 days from the date of sending a copy of a Decision of Refusal or a Decision to Dismiss Amendment is extended to 3 months. Additionally, in case of patent, the revised time limit is applicable only when an amendment to the description and the like at the time of request for appeal is to be done at the same time as the request for appeal.
In response to these revisions, JPO released, on September 17, 2008, guidelines concerning the time limit for requesting appeals in case of overseas applicant. The date of enforcement of the revised Patent Act will be designated by a government ordinance within 1 year from April 18, 2008.

An extension of the time limit for requesting appeals is not permitted in principle, except the following case.
In case where an overseas applicant requests an appeal against examiner’s decision of refusal with regard to a patent application, the time limit would be 4 months determined by adding 1-month extension by virtue of the authority to the 3-month time limit, in consideration of a balance with the current system, which allows a time limit of about 4-month in total for requesting appeals and discussing amendments to the description and the like.



Japan Patent Office
http://www.jpo.go.jp/iken/h20_kaisei_sinpan_seikyuu_toriatukai.htm

Patent Applications in Eight Key Fields

The Japan Patent Office website regularly updates its information on the patent applications in the following eight key fields: 1. life science; 2. communications; 3. the environment; 4. nanotechnology/materials; 5. energy; 6. manufacturing technology; 7. infrastructure; and 8. the frontier. As of August 20, 2008, the Japan Patent Office website has publicized the data below using graphs and tables.

1. Numbers of Unexamined Patent Application Publications Published during a One-Year Period in the Eight Key Fields in Japan
In comparison to other fields, the number of Unexamined Patent Application Publications published during a one-year period is the largest in the field of communications, followed by nanotechnology/materials and life science.
The figures of 2007 increased from those of 2006 in the fields of life science, nanotechnology/materials, and infrastructure.

2. Numbers of Patents Registered during a One-Year Period in the Eight Key Fields in Japan
In comparison to other fields, the number of patents registered during a one-year period is the largest in the field of communications, followed by nanotechnology/materials and life science.
The figures of 2007 increased from those of 2006 in all the fields listed.

In addition to the above data, the site also posts “Numbers of Unexamined Patent Application Publications Published during a One-Month Period in the Eight Key Fields in Japan, the U.S., Europe, China, South Korea, and Taiwan” and “Numbers of Unexamined Patent Application Publications Published and Patents Registered during a One-Year Period on the Category Basis.”

For more detail, visit the Japan Patent Office website below.

The Japan Patent Office website
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou/toukei/1402-027.htm

Clarification of operation of the requirement of unity of invention in the Patent·Utility Model Handbook

On July 30, 2008, the Patent Office clarified in the Patent·Utility Model Handbook (61. 02) the way of thinking concerning “an (another) invention, examination of which is practically finished,” which is described under THE REQUIREMENT OF UNITY OF INVENTION in the Examination Guideline section I chapter 2.
The Patent Office also clarified in the Patent·Utility Model Handbook (61. 03) the requirement of unity of invention for an application in which plural groups of inventions are figured out, in the view of an invention recited in the beginning of CLAIMS.

<<“An (Another) invention, examination of which is practically finished”>>
As an invention to be exceptionally examined regardless of the unity of invention, the Examination Guidelines mentions therein “an invention, examination of which is practically finished as a result of examining an invention to be examined.” Though there is no clear definition of “an invention, examination of which is practically finished,” the Patent Office clarified a range of such an invention, based on concrete examples (31, 35, 36) raised in the Examination Guidelines.
Specifically, an invention corresponding to any of the following (1) through (3) of 1 and satisfying 2 should be considered to be “an invention, examination of which is practically finished.”

1. An invention, examination (examination of novelty, inventive step, etc) of which in relation to a prior art is practically finished.
(1) An invention that is simply different from an invention to be examined, in an expression method.

(2) An invention that (i) simply carries out adding, eliminating, converting, etc of a well-known and/or conventional technique to/from/in an invention to be examined, and thus (ii) does not obtain a new effect. (This requirement should be limited to a case in which the technique to be added to, eliminated from, converted in, etc. can be identified as the well-known and/or conventional technique, (i) without performing a search or examination or (ii) in a process of searching and/or examining the invention to be examined)

(3) An invention of a broad concept that encompasses an invention to be examined. Based on examination results of novelty, inventive step, etc. of the invention to be examined, a judgment result of the invention of the broad concept can be obtained without requiring a further examination practically.

2. Examination (examination of description requirement, etc.) other than the examination of a relation between a prior art and the invention to be examined is practically finished.

<<“Requirement of unity of invention for an application in which plural groups of inventions are figured out, in the view of an invention recited in the beginning of CLAIMS”>>

Study Case
Claim 1: X + Y
Claim 2: X + a
Claim 3: Y + b
(claims 1 and 2: the same technical feature X)
(claims 1 and 3: the same technical feature Y)

(The following should be presupposed: it is described in specification that both X and Y are novel, both X and Y are admitted to be special technical features, and at least one of X and Y is found a posteriori to be “a technical feature making a contribution to a prior art.”)

1. Is the requirement of unity of invention satisfied in the study cases?
In order for an application having two or more inventions to satisfy the requirement of unity of invention, all the inventions recited in CLAIMS of the application have to form a single group of inventions, as a whole.
However, the inventions in accordance with claims 1 through 3 of the study case do not form the single group of inventions since the inventions recited in claims 1 and 2 and the inventions recited in claims 1 and 3 form different groups of inventions.
Thus, the requirement of unity of invention is not satisfied.

2. If the requirement of unity of invention is not satisfied, how does the Examiner select a group of inventions to examine?
1. Even if the requirement of unity of invention is not satisfied, a group of inventions satisfying the unity of invention in relation to a first invention are selected as inventions to be examined for requirements other than the requirement of unity of invention (the Examination Guideline section I chapter 2, 4.1(1)).
In the study case, a technical feature that is more likely to make a contribution to a prior art is to be identified in the invention in accordance with claim 1, the first invention.

2. If both X and Y are the technical features that are more likely to make contributions to the prior art in a case where, as in the study case, there are plural groups of inventions that satisfy the unity of invention in relation to the first invention, the Examiner has his/her own discretion in selecting which technical feature to examine.

3. If the Examiner selects X, it means that the Examiner selects, as the inventions to examine, the invention (X + Y) in accordance with claim 1 and another invention (X + a) in accordance with claim 2, the latter invention being linked to the former by X.

4. In adherence with the spirit of the requirement of unity of invention, X and Y cannot be selected simultaneously as the inventions to be examined.

The Patent Office’s Homepage
Clarification of operation of “the requirement of unity of invention”
http://www.jpo.go.jp/torikumi/t_torikumi/hatumeinotanitusei.htm

Patent·Utility Model Handbook (61. 02) (61. 03)
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou/kijun/kijun2/pdf/handbook_shinsa/61.pdf

Examination Guideline Requirement of unity of invention
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou/kijun/kijun2/pdf/tjkijun_i-2.pdf

Triway Pilot Program to Commence on July 28, 2008

The Trilateral Offices (European Patent Office, Japan Patent Office, and United States Patent and Trademark Office) will commence the search sharing project Triway Pilot Program on July 28, 2008.
[Purpose of Triway Pilot Program]
Triway is the framework in which the Office of Second Filing and the Office of Third Filing utilize the search results of the Office of First Filing, so that each Trilateral Office could eliminate the duplication of work for search and examination, and in which applicants receive the search (and examination) results from each Office at almost the same time so that they could proceed (ex. amend the claims) under the consideration of all the Trilateral Offices' results. The pilot program will be implemented in order to test the effect of this framework
[Eligible Applications]
An application must be filed with the USPTO as the Office of First Filing. A corresponding application claiming priority to the U.S. application must be filed with the EPO and the JPO as the Office of Second Filing and the Office of Third Filing.
As for the JPO, an applicant must file a request for the accelerated examination with the JPO by submitting “The Explanation of Circumstances Concerning Accelerated Examination.”
[Trial Period]
The Triway pilot program will end on July 28, 2009 (1 year after the commencement) or upon the acceptance of 100 requests submitted to the USPTO as the Office of First Filing, whichever occurs first.

[Related Websites]
Japan Patent Office　
http://www.jpo.go.jp/torikumi/t_torikumi/triway.htm (Japanese)
http://www.jpo.go.jp/torikumi_e/t_torikumi_e/triway_e.htm (English)
United States Patent and Trademark Office
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/triwaypilot.html
European Patent Office
http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-texts/InformationEPO/archiveinfo/20080716.html

Questioning Utilizing Pre-trial Reports (Pre-trial Questioning)

On July 10, 2008, the Japan Patent Office announced that as for cases whose appeal examination against examiner’s decision of refusal in connection with patent applications would be initiated after October, 2008, the conventional practice of judging the necessity for pre-trial questioning by case would be revised and in principle, pre-trial questioning would be conducted concerning all the cases with pre-trial reports prepared.
Pre-trial questioning is a system intended to secure procedures “by sending the contents of pre-trial reports to applicants for appeals so as to give them opportunities for making arguments against examiner’s judgment.” With this system, Appeals Department is expected to substantially examine appeals and make judgment on the basis of arguments of applicants for appeals.
Furthermore, note that the pre-trial questioning is not intended to grant opportunities for making amendments and that nonsubmission of responses to the pre-trial questioning will not have a disadvantageous influence on applicants for appeals in the course of appeal examination and judgment.

Japan Patent Office
http://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki/sinpan/sinpan2/zentihoukoku.htm

Regarding Trilateral Comparative Study on Examination Practices

Subsequently to the publication of “Case Study on Description Requirements And Comparative Study on Laws/Examination Standards concerning Inventive Step”, JPO published “Case Study on Inventive Step” on November 26, 2008.
As a result of the case study on inventive step, the Trilateral Offices share similar views with regard to five cases out of six cases. However, regarding the remaining one case, the three patent offices are different as follows. JPO considers that the claimed invention is novel but not inventive, while EPO and USPTO consider that the claimed invention is not novel neither.
As a whole, the approaches of the Trilateral Offices to examining inventive step are similar that all three offices define the difference between claimed invention and the prior art, and then consider whether a person skilled in the art could have arrived at the claimed invention in consideration of the state of the art.

Currently, the following results of comparative studies/case studies are published.
[Comparative Study on Laws/Examination Standards]
“Comparative Study on Laws/Examination Standards concerning Description Requirements” (English)
“Comparative Study on Laws/Examination Standards concerning Inventive Step” (English)
[Case Study]
“Case Study on Description Requirements” (English/Preliminary Japanese)
“Case Study on Inventive Step” (English/Preliminary Japanese)

The Website of JPO
http://www.jpo.go.jp/torikumi/kokusai/kokusai3/sinsa_jitumu_3kyoku.htm

- - - (Previous Information) - - -


“Comparative Study on Laws/Examination Standards concerning Requirements for Disclosure” and “Case Study on Requirements for Disclosure”

Subsequently to the publication of “Trilateral Comparative Study on Laws/Examination standards concerning Requirements for Disclosure” on July 10, 2008, JPO published “Case Study on Requirements for Disclosure And Comparative Study on Laws/Examination Standards concerning Inventive Step”.

The object of the study is to “perform comparative study on examination practices of trilateral patent offices in view of requirements for disclosure and inventive step (non-obviousness) and allow applicants/representatives to be familiar with the comparative study to support preparation of high quality specifications”.

The “Comparative Study on Laws/Examination Standards” gives analysis showing the comparison outline and different/same points concerning Laws/Examination standards of the trilateral patent offices. The “Case Study” gives analysis on requirements for disclosure based on laws/examination standards of the trilateral patent offices with reference to cases prepared by the trilateral offices. These studies were published in English.

JPO
http://www.jpo.go.jp/torikumi/kokusai/kokusai3/sinsa_jitumu_3kyoku.htm
The Website of the Trilateral Co-operation
http://www.trilateral.net/projects/legal_issues/20071218/

Publication of Japan Patent Office Annual Report 2008

JPO has publicized “Present Status and Issues of Industrial Property Rights ~Promotion of Innovation responding to Globalization~ ”, on June 27, 2008.
The main focus in the annual report for 2008 is: (1) to “collect and analyze necessary information to grasp the present status and issues of (i) international changes in situations in connection with intellectual property and (ii) intellectual property strategies in private companies and universities”, and (2) “encourage private companies and universities to promote strategic intellectual property management, and provide useful information for promoting innovation of our country”.
The report consists of four sections:
Section 1 – Trends in connection with Industrial Property Rights such as Application and Registration Status in and out of the country;
Section 2 –Government Efforts in Intellectual Property Activities such as Strategic Programs for Intellectual Property Promotion 2008 and Law Amendment;
Section 3 – Measures for Private Companies and Universities; and
Section 4 – International Trends and Efforts.
JPO has issued a PDF file listing the points of the Annual Report, as well as the entire Report.

Link: JPO website http://www.jpo.go.jp/torikumi/puresu/press_zaisanken_kouhyou.htm

Strategic Program for Intellectual Property Promotion 2008

The Strategic Council on Intellectual Property finalized a “Strategic Program for Intellectual Property Promotion 2008” on June 18, 2008, provided with a subtitle “—Enhancement of intellectual property over the world—”.
The Strategic Program for Intellectual Property Promotion 2008 is largely classified into a key section and a main section.
In the key section, the following topics are mentioned, and in each topic, key points thereof are listed:
(1) Further Enhancement in international competitiveness in selective strategic fields of Japan;
(2) Enhancement in expansion into international markets; and
(3) Leadership in measures towards worldwide and Asian issues.
In the main section, the following topics are mentioned:
(1) Creation of intellectual property such as enhancement of creativity in basic research fields;
(2) Protection of advanced technology and review of the duration period extension system of patent rights;
(3) Strategic application of intellectual property such as promotion of intellectual property strategies to accommodate open innovation, supporting of small and venture businesses, and utilization of intellectual property such as acceleration of innovation in local areas;
(4) Accomplishment of a contents nation responding to the digital, internet generation, and creation of a cultural nation making good use of contents such as Japanese brand strategies and the like; and
(5) Improvement of manpower development and national consciousness.

Link: http://www.ipr.go.jp/sokuhou/2008keikaku.pdf

Brief summary of 2008 Law Amendments related to Intellectual Property

1. In order to accomplish a highly convenient intellectual property system which meets the needs of users, the following amendments were made from a view of strategic application and fair protection of intellectual property rights.
The amended laws will become effective from a date specified by a Cabinet Order within a period not exceeding one year from day of promulgation, i.e. within one year from April 18, 2008 (excluding “(4) Reduction of fees related to Patent and Trademark (Patent, Trademark)” and “(5) Introduction of Account Transfer System for payment of fees”).
(1) Review of Non-exclusive License Registration System (Patent, Utility Model)
(i) Establishment of a registration system pertaining to licenses during the patent application stage
(ii) Disclosure limit accompanying non-exclusive license registration
(2) Review of Appeal Against Decision of Refusal (Patent, Design, Trademark) and Appeal Against Decision of Amendment Rejection (Design, Trademark)
(i) Expansion of current period to request an Appeal Against Decision of Refusal (“within 30 days from the mailing date of the Decision of Refusal”) to “within 3 months”
(ii) Amendments to the scope of the claims (currently allowed within 30 days from the examination request date) will be allowed only concurrently with the request for examination.
(3) Expansion of object countries allowing electronic interchanges of priority documents (Patent, Utility Model)
(4) Reduction of fees related to Patent and Trademark (Patent, Trademark)
Fees were reduced for patents, particularly the patent fees required for patents granted for more than 10 years. Establishment registration fees, registration renewal fees, and individual charges based on international registration were reduced for trademark. The reduced fees have been effective since June 1, 2008.
(5) Introduction of Account Transfer System for payment of fees
Regarding fee payment, a payment system transferring money from a bank account will be introduced (limited to online applications) in addition to payment methods such as patent revenue stamps. The date of enforcement is January 1, 2009.

2. Other main Law Amendments related to intellectual property
Act to amend part of Customs Tariff Law
In order to fulfill and enhance coastal regulations at customs and to simplify customs procedures, intellectual property infringing products which have arrived in Japan for purposes other than importation are prohibited to be stored in a bond area, and any violations of this will be penalized. In addition, suspension application procedures pertaining to the intellectual property infringing products were simplified.
Further to this, from April 1, 2008, if any of the customs accepts a Suspension Measures Motion, it is treated that all of the customs have accepted the Motion.

Link: http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou/toushin/nenji/nenpou2008/honpen/2-06.pdf

“Proposal for amending part of Patent Law” approved by the Cabinet.

“Proposal for amending part of Patent Law” was approved by the Cabinet on February 1, 2008. The following 5 items are included in the amendment contents. The plan scheme for JPO is to “pass the Diet within the annual year for the amendment law proposal, and separately establish the enforcement within one year”. The timing that the proposal will be passed through the Diet will depend on the discussion conditions.
(1)Revision of registration systems such as nonexclusive license (Patent Law, Utility Model Law)
(2)Revision of requesting period for appeal trial (Patent Law, Design Law, Trademark Law)
(3)Expansion of object countries in the electronic exchange of priority documents (Patent Law, Utility Model Law)
(4)Reduction of Patent/Trademark related fees (Patent Law, Trademark Law)
(5)Introduction of an account transfer payment system for payment of fees