Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Who May File Patent Invalidation Trials in Japan?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Kreation Innovation Märkte - Creation Innovation Markets

  • 274 Accesses

Abstract

Invalidation trials in Japan Patent Office are inter parte proceedings between the petitioner and the patentee. The Patent Act allows only “an interested person” to file invalidation trials because it primarily aims to settle private disputes. At the same time, invalidation trials may contribute to the public interest because removing invalid patents would be beneficial to the public. Therefore, not only the private interest but also the public interest may be taken into account in interpreting “an interested person.”

Against this background, this article analyzes and review case law by different categories. In general, “an interested person” has been broadly interpreted and it should continue to be so. This article further examined how broadly “an interested person” may be interpreted and pointed out the remaining issues.

Prof. Ichiro Nakayama, LLM, Graduate School of Law, Hokkaido University.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This paper is partly based on Nakayama (2023)

  2. 2.

    JPO (2014), 78

  3. 3.

    Supreme Court of April 11, 2000, 1998 (O) 364 – Kilby case

  4. 4.

    38th Patent System Subcommittee, Intellectual Property Committee, Industrial Structure Council (2012), 6

  5. 5.

    Tokyo High Court of September 27, 1966, 1965(Gyo Ke) 65; Tokyo High Court of February 25, 1970, 1969 (Gyo Ke) 81; Tokyo High Court of June 18, 1987, 1982 (Gyo Ke) 269; et cetera (etc.)

  6. 6.

    JPO (2003), 52

  7. 7.

    Intellectual Property Committee, Industrial Structure Council (2013), 4–8

  8. 8.

    In 2003, when oppositions were abolished, 254 invalidation trials were filed. In contrast, 269 invalidation trials were filed in 2011, which was almost same level as in 2003. Intellectual Property Committee, Industrial Structure Council (2013), 5

  9. 9.

    Intellectual Property Committee, Industrial Structure Council (2013), 12–13

  10. 10.

    Prior to the 2003 amendment, the percentage of requests for invalidation trials by individual names was 2.6 % (of which 0% by patent attorneys) for 2001–2003. After the 2003 amendment, that was 17% (of which 4.9% by patent attorneys) for 2004–2011. Although individuals’ requests may not always represent dummies’ requests, the former may be regarded as a proxy of the latter. 38th Patent System Subcommittee, Intellectual Property Committee, Industrial Structure Council (2012), 7

  11. 11.

    JPO (2014), 121

  12. 12.

    JPO (2020), 31-00, 2

  13. 13.

    JPO (2020), 31-01, 3

  14. 14.

    Tokyo High Court of December 13, 1966, 1958 (Gyo Na) 30; Tokyo High Court of June 18, 1987, 1982 (Gyo Ke) 269; Tokyo High Court of September 25, 1997, 1995 (Gyo Ke) 228; etc.

  15. 15.

    Tokyo High Court of December 13, 1966, 1958 (Gyo Na) 30; Tokyo High Court of November 28, 1985, 1984 (Gyo Ke) 94 (Design Act case)

  16. 16.

    Tokyo High Court of September 25, 1985, 1983 (Gyo Ke) 181 (Utility Model Act case); Tokyo High Court of March 30, 1988, 1985 (Gyo Ke) 191; Tokyo High Court of September 25, 1997, 1995 (Gyo Ke) 228; Tokyo High Court of October 18, 2004, 2003 (Gyo Ke) 156

  17. 17.

    Tokyo High Court of March 19, 1970, 1967 (Gyo Ke) 20 (Design Act case)

  18. 18.

    Tokyo IP High Court of October 23, 2017,2016 (Gyo Ke) 10185 – disposable diaper case

  19. 19.

    JPO (2020), 31-02

  20. 20.

    Noguchi (1972), 1043, Mitsuishi (1971), 536

  21. 21.

    Oda and Ishikawa (1972), pp.445–446, Tamura (1988), 92, Yoshifuji revised by Kumagai (1998), p.599, Chaen (2000) p.426, etc.

  22. 22.

    Tokyo High Court of July 30, 1985, 1984 (Gyo Ke) 7. See also Tokyo High Court of January 31, 1963, 1956 (Gyo Na) 48 (A case prior to 1959 Act)

  23. 23.

    Tokyo High Court of November 28, 1979, 1977(Gyo Ke) 127; Tokyo High Court of December 23, 1980, 1980 (Gyo Ke) 42(Utility Model Law case); Tokyo High Court of March 30, 1983, 1982 (Gyo Ke) 133

  24. 24.

    The guideline of the Anti-Monopoly Act allows, in principle, the no-challenge obligation in license agreements, however stipulates that it may constitute an unfair trade practices when it is found to impede fair competition. Japan Fair Trade Commission (2016), 4-4-(7)

  25. 25.

    Nakayama (2019), 540, Tamura (2010), 297–298, etc. However, one commentator argued that licensees’ requests would be permissible if the invalidation ground is clear. Tamura (2010), 298

  26. 26.

    Tokyo IP High Court of December 19, 2019, 2019 (Gyo-ke) 10053

  27. 27.

    Tokyo High Court of September 29, 1983, 1980 (Gyo Ke) 367- rug case

  28. 28.

    IP High Court of March 29, 2010, 2009 (Gyo Ke) 10226 – SHIDAMO case

  29. 29.

    In principle, IP High Court hears cases by a panel consisting of three judges. They may hear cases by a grand panel consisting of five judges (Civil Procedure Code, Art. 310-2). Grand panel cases contain issues which IP High Court considers important.

  30. 30.

    IP High Court of April 13, 2018, 2016 (Gyo-Ke) 10182, 10184 – Pyrimidine Derivative Grand Panel case

  31. 31.

    IP High Court of April 13, 2018, 2016 (Gyo Ke) 10260 – Pyrimidine Derivative Second Panel case

  32. 32.

    Iseki (2019), 259; Tamura (2020), 176

  33. 33.

    Tokyo High Court of December 26, 1990, 1990 (Gyo Ke) 77

  34. 34.

    Tokyo High Court of March 5, 2002,1999 (Gyo Ke) 25

  35. 35.

    Iseki (2019), 259; Maeda (2019), 23–24

  36. 36.

    Tamura (2020), 177–178

  37. 37.

    Tamura (2020), 177

  38. 38.

    Iseki (2019), 259

  39. 39.

    Tamura (2022), 70, footnote (fn.) 66

  40. 40.

    Nakayama (2019) 271, 540

  41. 41.

    Tamura (2010), 297

  42. 42.

    Tamura (2020), 177

  43. 43.

    JPO (2020), 31-02

  44. 44.

    Nakayama (2003), 440–444, 457

  45. 45.

    JPO (2022), 1737

  46. 46.

    This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP20K01412.

References

  • 38th Patent System Subcommittee, Intellectual Property Committee, Industrial Structure Council (2012) Tsuyoku Anteishita Kenri no Souki Settei no Jitsugen ni Mukete (4) (Toward realization of early granting of strong and stable rights (4). https://www.jpo.go.jp/resources/shingikai/sangyo-kouzou/shousai/tokkyo_shoi/document/seisakubukai-38-shiryou/01.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2023

  • Chaen S (2000) Case note. In: Yamagami Kazunori Sensei Kanreki Kinen Ronbunshu, Mr. Kazunori Yamagami’s 60th birthday commemorative collections of papers. Japan Institute of Invention, Tokyo, S 421–434

    Google Scholar 

  • Intellectual Property Committee, Industrial Structure Council (2013) Tsuyoku Anteishita Kenri no Souki Settei oyobi Yuza no Ribensei Kojo ni Mukete (Towards early granting of strong and stable rights and improving user convenience). https://www.jpo.go.jp/resources/shingikai/sangyo-kouzou/shousai/tokkyo_shoi/document/h25houkokusho/houkoku.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2023

  • Iseki R (2019) Case note. Jyurisuto (Jurist) 1531:258–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Japan Fair Trade Commission (2016) Chiteki Zaisan no Riyou ni kansuru Dokusenkinshihou jyo no Shishin (Guidelines for the use of intellectual property under the antimonopoly act). https://www.jftc.go.jp/dk/guideline/unyoukijun/chitekizaisan.html. Accessed 22 May 2023

  • Japan Patent Office (2022) Kogyo Shoyukenhou Chikujyo Kaisetsu Dai 22 Han (Article-by-article commentary on industrial property law), 22nd edn. Japan Institute for Promoting Invention and Innovation, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Japan Patent Office (JPO) (2003) Heisei 15 nen Tokkyohou tou no Ichibu Kaisei Sangyo Zaisankenhou no Kaisetsu (Commentary on 2003 amendment of the patent act). Japan Institute for Promoting Invention and Innovation, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Japan Patent Office (JPO) (2014) Heisei 26 nen Tokkyohou tou no Ichibu Kaisei Sangyo Zaisankenhou no Kaisetsu (Commentary on 2014 amendment of the patent act). Japan Institute for Promoting Invention and Innovation, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Japan Patent Office (JPO) (2020) Shinpan Binran 19 han (Manual for trial and appeal proceedings), 19th edn. https://www.jpo.go.jp/system/trial_appeal/sinpan-binran.html. Accessed 22 May 2023

  • Kato M (2019) Tokkyo Mukou Shinpan ni okeru Seikyunin Tekikaku no Shinri (Examination of claimant eligibility of patent invalidation trials). Patento (Patent) 72, 7: 81-93

    Google Scholar 

  • Maeda K (2019) Case note. L&T 83:16–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsuishi S (1971) Shintei Tokkyohou Shosetsu (Newly revised explication of patent act). Teikoku Chihou Gyosei Gakkai, Kyoto

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakayama I (2003) Nichibei Hikaku kara mita Tokkoken to “Jikken no Jiyu” no Kankei ni tsuite (The relationship between patents and “freedom of experimentation” from a viewpoint of US-Japan comparison). AIPPI 48(6):436–472

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakayama I (2023) Tokkyo Mukou Shinpan wo Seikyu surukoto ga dekiru Rigaikankeinin (An interested person who can file a patent invalidation trial). In: Shimizu Misao Sensei Koki Kinen Ronshu (Mr. Misao Shimizu’s 70th birthday commemorative collection of papers). Nihon Kajo Publishing, Tokyo, forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakayama N (2019) Tokkyohou Dai 4 Han (Patent Act), 4th edn. Kobundo, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Noguchi Y (1972) Tokkyo Jisshi Keiyaku (Patent license agreement). In: Hara Musuji Hanji Taikan Kinen Ronbunshu (Judge Masuji Hara’s retirement commemorative collection of papers). Yuhikaku, Tokyo, S 1013–1049

    Google Scholar 

  • Oda S, Ishikawa Y (1972) Zoutei Shin Tokkohou Shoukai (Revised new explication of patent act). Nihon Hatsumei Shinbunsha, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamura Y (1988) Case note. Jyurisuto (Jurist) 919:90–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamura Y (2010) Chiteki Zaisan Hou Dai 5 Han (Intellectual property law, 5th edn. Yuhikaku, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamura Y (2020) Case note. Chiteki Zaisan Hou Seisaku Gaku Kenkyu (Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal) 56:163–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamura Y (2022) Tokkyo Tekikakusei Youken no Kinou to Igi ni kansuru Ichi Kousatsu(1) (Considering the function and role of patent eligibility requirements (1)). Chiteki Zaisan Hou Seisaku Gaku Kenkyu (Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal) 64(2022):39–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoshifuji K revised by Kumagai K (1998) Tokkyohou Gaisetsu 13 han (Outline of patent law), 13th edn. Yuhikaku, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sapporo, Japan

    Ichiro Nakayama

Authors
  1. Ichiro Nakayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ichiro Nakayama .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Schweiz

    Florent Thouvenin

  2. Fachbereich Rechtswissenschaft, Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

    Alexander Peukert

  3. Institut für Europarecht, Internationales Recht und Rechtsvergleichung, Universität Wien, Wien, Österreich

    Thomas Jaeger

  4. Department of Law, Luiss University – Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli, Rom, Italy

    Christophe Geiger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nakayama, I. (2024). Who May File Patent Invalidation Trials in Japan?. In: Thouvenin, F., Peukert, A., Jaeger, T., Geiger, C. (eds) Kreation Innovation Märkte - Creation Innovation Markets. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-68599-0_46

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-68599-0_46

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-68598-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-68599-0

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation