1 / 20

Post Grant Review and Other Third Party Review in JP -Who Moved JP Opposition???

Post Grant Review and Other Third Party Review in JP -Who Moved JP Opposition???. Kay KONISHI NICHI-EI Patent and Trademark Attorneys, P.C. AIPLA MWI, Japan Practice Committee Meeting, Jan. 22, 2012, Las Vegas. 1.1. Rationale for Third Party Review.

dahlia
Download Presentation

Post Grant Review and Other Third Party Review in JP -Who Moved JP Opposition???

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Post Grant Review and Other Third Party Review in JP-Who Moved JP Opposition??? Kay KONISHI NICHI-EI Patent and Trademark Attorneys, P.C. AIPLA MWI, Japan Practice Committee Meeting, Jan. 22, 2012, Las Vegas

  2. 1.1.Rationale for Third Party Review • Actual/ potential Dispute resolution between parties • Public participation in patenting

  3. 1.2.Comparable Procedures in Different Jurisdictions • US present • Ex Parte Reexamination and Inter Partes Reexamination only on the grounds of prior art publication • US AIA • Post-Grant Review within 9 months after grant on wider grounds • Inter Partes Review • EP • EPO Opposition with broad range of grounds • Invalidation procedures before national authorities • JP used to have opposition…

  4. 2.1.Long History of Third Party Review… 1921-1993 Pub. of Examined Appl. FD Pub. Grant Third Party Observation Pre-Grant Opposition 3M Invalidation Trial at JPO

  5. 2.2.Long History of Third Party Review… 1994-2002 FD Pub. Grant Third Party Observation Post-Grant Opposition 6M Invalidation Trial at JPO 2000 (Kilby Sup. Ct. case)- Invalidation Defense in Ct.

  6. 2.3.Long History of Third Party Review 2003-Present FD Pub. Grant Third Party Observation Post-Grant Third Party Observation Invalidation Trial at JPO Invalidation Defense in Ct.

  7. 3.1.1994 Change-From Pre-Grant to Post-Grant • Changed in aiming fast grant • Pressure came from overseas • 1989 US Senate Resolution on problematic JP patent system • 1993 US-JP Framework for new Econimic Partnership • 1994 US-JP Agreement • Pre-Grant Opposition was found as impediment to fast grant • High burden on Examiners involved in Opposition was another pressure • ...The biginning of the end

  8. 3.2. 2003 Change-Post-Grant Opposition Abandoned... • Abandoned « to be merged into Invalidation Trial » in the course of dispute resolution reform within Dispute Resolution sub-committee in METI Industrial Structure Council • Treble tracks after grant was found complicated and duplicated • NO Estoppel between Post-Grant Opposition and Invalidation Trial, thus one party can freely demand Invalidation Trial again after he lost in the opposition or even simultaneously on an identical ground • NO joinder between Opposition and Invalidation Trial

  9. 3.2.2003 Change-Post-Grant Opposition Abandoned • Post-Grant Opposition was less popular than Pre-Grant one and criticized as unfriendly for third party requester • Post-Grant Opposition was no more the same one as Pre-Grant Opposition • Post-Grant Opposition was highly ex parte, while Pre-Grant Opposition was closer to inter partes • Once the requester filed opposition, he was no more notified of patentee’s amendment/brief • Post-Grant Opposition was designed to be differentiated from Invalidation Trial

  10. 3.3. Comparison in Third Party Reviews before JPO

  11. 3.4.What Was Expected in 2003 Change • In 2003 change, Invalidation Trial System was enhanced to cover public participation function of opposition • Real interest has been no more required • Average trial duration shortened (about 12 months or less) • Users preferred more participation to proceedings • Accordingly, Post-Grant Opposition was assumed no more necessary and replaceable by enhanced Invalidation Trial • ...Really??

  12. 3.5. What Happened after 2003 Change

  13. 3.5. What Happened after 2003 Change

  14. 4.1.Present Measures Available for Third Party Review • Enhanced Third Party Observation • Broad range of grounds (eligibility, novelty, inventive-step, description requirement, new matter introduction...) (Ordinance Rule 13) • Can be filed anonymously • Patent/non-patent document submission • With reasons/arguments on unpatentability • When to be examined is publicly accessible so that third party can submit document in due course (http://www.deux.jpo.go.jp/ssearch/search.htm) • After 18 month Laid-open Publication; or • Post-Grant: Submitted documents are just to be docketed for public inspection

  15. 4.1.Present Measures Available for Third Party Review • Long- and well-established Invalidation Trial • Anyone can demand, not necessarily by real party in interest • NO limitation to grounds for demand • No threshold to commence proceeding • Fast and scheduled proceeding (ave. 12 months) • Decision by collegial body of BOA Examiners is credible • Inter partes proceeding assures a chance of demandant’s subsequent argument after demand • Oral proceeding after both parties’ assertions • Inexpensive official fee (JPY49,500+@JPY5,500/claim) • No Estoppel, only subsequent demand by same party on identical ground + ref. is prohibited (Amended Art.167) • Reliable tool for third party validity review in terms of dispute resolution...

  16. 4.2.Revisiting Another Aspect of Third Party Review… • Public participation in patenting • For Quality Patent • Users need something inbetween • Less burden • More preventive • Before actual controversy • For certain time of period • Anonymous demand • Good for training for practitioners • Enhanced Invalidation Trial is not yet a full replacement of old opposition in terms of public participation...

  17. 5.1.Ongoing Discussions on Public Participation in Patenting… • Report from JPO Commissioner’s private Patent System Study Group (2009.Dec.) • Enhancement of Third Party Review was discussed • Pros and cons • Post-/Pre-Grant Review should be introduced • Current examination quality is satisfactory, no need to introduce public participation • Discussing adequacy of abandonment of opposition should be sensitive • Proposals from secretariat • A: « ex parte Invalidation Trial for certain period of time » • B: « JPO Commissioner’s discretionary Reexamination »

  18. 5.1.Ongoing Discussions on Public Participation in Patenting • Report from JPO Commissioner’s private Patent System Study Group (2009.Dec.) • No consensus • « Discussion carried over » • Not addressed by 2011 Amendment to Patent Act • JPAA submitted and published affirmative proposal on third party review (2010.Feb.) http://www.jpaa.or.jp/activity/appeal/2010/pdf/iken_tokkyoseidokenkyukai.pdf • « Pre-Grant Cooperating Examination system » • Publication of allowable application on the Internet • 2-3 months for third party submission • Examination resumes and to be finished within 6 months

  19. 5.2.Wrap-up • In order to achieve Quality Patent and to keep examination system sustainable, enhancing third party review is practical solution in light of time constraints and limited examination resources • Applications/patents that are drawing public attention may be allowed to draw certain extra work by the Office • In order to eliminate excessive burden on Examiners/patentees, threshold to commence, Estoppel or prohibition of double jeopardy may work

  20. Kay KONISHI NICHI-EI Patent and Trademark Attorneys, P.C. Konishi@p-nic.com

More Related