The following is a summary of
changes that have been made in the Japanese Patent Law effective
April 1st of 2007. The changes consist of three main
parts and one miscellaneous part as follows:
1. Revisions in
the Divisional Application System
2. Revised Amendment System
3. Extension of the Period for which to
File a Translation of a Foreign
Language
Application
4. Other Miscellaneous Revisions*
(*effective January 1, 2007)
1. Revised Divisional Application
System
Revised Points: The timeframe in
which Divisional Applications can be filed has been changed.
[Filing Period of Divisional Applications]
Since Divisional Applications were
considered to be analogous to amendments in Japan, under the old
law, Divisional Applications could only be filed during the
period in which amendments for the claims, description, or
drawings attached to the application could be made. That
timeframe was:
(i) the period prior to the response period of the
first office action,
(ii) the
period when responding to a non-final office action, and
(iii) the period
within 30 days of filing Demand for Trial against the
Examiner's
Decision of Final Refusal
Under the new law, Divisionals can
now be additionally filed within 30 days from the mailing of a
Decision to Grant a Patent (also known as a Notice of Allowance)
and prior to the issuance of a patent, or within 30 days from
the mailing of the issuance of a Decision of Final Refusal.
[Merits of the New Law]
The primary purpose of filing a
Divisional application in Japan is to continue an application
and to secure a broader scope of patent protection. However,
prior to April 2007, Divisionals could not be filed after
receiving a Notice of Allowance. If an applicant wanted to file
a Divisional, he had to do so within the period in which the
last amendment could be filed, such as when responding to an
office action. In addition, if an applicant wanted to file a
Divisional Application after an issuance of a Decision of
Refusal, he had to first file a Demand for Trial against the
Examiner's Decision of Final Refusal for the sole purpose of
obtaining an opportunity to file a Divisional application.
Now, under the new law, a
Divisional can be filed without pursuing an appeal. In other
words, after an issuance of the Decision of Refusal, if an
applicant wants to separate one portion of the claims and seek
protection, he can now do so without first filing a demand for
Trial. Thus, unnecessary procedures can be avoided in the
future.
Also, applicants no longer need to
file a Divisional Application along with a response to office
actions, just for the purposes of keeping the application
"pending" and prevent the loss of any opportunities should a
Decision to Grant a Patent be mailed.
Additionally, applicants may now
have greater opportunities to obtain more comprehensive or
multidisciplinary patents, due to the additional opportunity to
file Divisional Applications. This change to allow Divisional
Applications to be filed as the issuance of Decision to Grant a
Patent or a Decision of Refusal brings the Japanese patent law
closer to U.S. and European patent law, and contributes to
harmonization of those systems.
[New Restrictions on the Amendments to the Divisional
Application]
Pre-April 1, 2007, a Divisional
Application was examined separately from the parent application.
Now with the new law in place, if a Divisional Application
includes a large portion of the claims of the parent application
(i.e., if the claims are substantially that of the same
invention), for which the grounds for rejection in said parent
application has not been resolved or overcome, the same
restrictions on the allowable scope of amendments imposed in a
final office action (*see below) apply to the Divisional
Application. In other words this is similar to receiving a
"first action final" rejection in U.S. practice.
(*The amendments allowable in a final office action are (i) the
deletion of the claims, (ii) the restriction of the scope of
claims, (iii) the correction of the errors in the description,
and (iv) the clarification of descriptions that are ambiguous.)
[The Effective Date]
The changes are applicable to
parent applications filed on or after April 1, 2007. The new law
will not apply to Divisional Applications whose parent
applications were filed on or before March 31, 2007, nor is it
applicable for cases currently pending before the Japanese
Patent Office.
2. Revised Amendment System
Revised Points:
The restriction to the scope of amendments has been added.
[Pre-revision System]
Excluding amendments filed in
response to an appeal against a Decision of Rejection, or a
final Notification of Reasons for Refusal, previously,
applicants were free to file amendments to drastically revise
the scope of a claimed invention after the issuance of the first
Notification of Reasons for Refusal, so long as the new claims
were found in the descriptions of the specification. For
instance, the scope of claims describing an "antenna" for a
mobile phone in the original application could be changed to a
scope of claims describing a "hinge device" of the same and
still be permissible. Such drastically revised claims now have
the different scope of an invention compared to the invention as
originally described in the claims. The making of this
particular type of amendments, however, caused unfairness since
it would allow some applications to be essentially examined
twice, while others, who have taken the time to unify the
targeted invention, would be examined only once.
[The New System]
The new law no longer permits the
filing of this type of amendments. The standard on whether the
amendment falls on to this particular type is judged based on
whether the original invention and the amended invention satisfy
the "unity of invention" requirements under Section 37 of the
Japanese Patent Law, and have the same "patentably distinct
characteristics".
In other words, once substantive
examinations of claims have been conducted, applicants can no
longer change inventions by canceling the rejected claims and
adding new claims covering different technical features, even if
the changed invention was originally encompassed within the
description.
[The Two Cases of Non-Permissible
Amendments]
There are essentially two cases of
shifting amendments that will no longer be permitted:
Case 1: An application with a
claimed invention regarding an antenna for a mobile phone (claim
A) and descriptions that include a hinged device of a mobile
phone (descriptions [A] and [B]) is submitted. The first office
action is issued and a Notification of Reasons for Refusal is
sent due to a lack of inventive step. An amendment is submitted
now with the hinged device of the mobile phone as the claimed
invention (claim B) with the same descriptions (descriptions [A]
and [B]). Since claims A and B do not satisfy the unity of
invention requirement, this will be grounds for refusal.
Case 2: An application with a
claimed invention regarding an antenna for a mobile phone (claim
A) and a hinged device of a mobile phone (claim B) is submitted.
Due to lack of unity, only invention A will be examined for its
patentability. If invention A is rejected due to a lack of
inventive step, submitting an amendment retaining only claims B
will be considered a shifting amendment and will not be
permitted either. If the pre-amendment application was issued a
Notice of Reasons for Refusal because it contained two
inventions that lacked unity, then the amended version
containing a narrowed scope of the original scope of claims will
be issued a Decision for Refusal (or a final office action) as
in the above example.
Consequently, applicants may need
to take special care to file any necessary amendments at the
time of filing a Request for Examination, so that certain
opportunities will not be lost due to this new limitation.
3. Extension of the Period for
which to File a Translation of a Foreign Language Application
Revised Points:
Due date for filing a Japanese translation of a foreign language
application has been revised.
[The Contents of the Revision]
Before the revision, the period
for filing a translation of a Japanese patent application filed
in a foreign language, a "foreign language application", was
within 2 months of the filing date of the foreign language
application. Under the new law, the period has been extended to
one year and two months from the date of filing if the
application was filed claiming no Paris Convention priority, or
from the priority date of the original application filed in
another country under the Paris Convention.
Please note that this revision
does not apply to the due date for filing a Japanese translation
for a PCT application that was originally filed in a foreign
language and entered into the Japanese national phase.
[The Effective Date]
The changes are applicable to a
foreign language applications filed in Japan on or after April
1, 2007.
4. Other Miscellaneous Revisions
(effective January 1, 2007)
· "Exportation" will be recognized
as an act of infringement
· "Act of holding a patented product for the purpose of
assignments or the like" will become an additional manner of
indirect infringement
· Criminal sanctions are increased for patent infringement
|