1 / 6

Amicus Briefs in Japan?

Amicus Briefs in Japan?. Dr. Shoichi Okuyama AIPPI Japan Okuyama & Sasajima. On January 23, 2014. The Intellectual Property High Court announced that its Grand Panel would review a FRAND declaration case , Apple v. Samsung Two preliminary injunction cases filed by Samsung against Apple

meryle
Download Presentation

Amicus Briefs in Japan?

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. Amicus Briefs in Japan? Dr. Shoichi Okuyama AIPPI Japan Okuyama & Sasajima

  2. On January 23, 2014 • The Intellectual Property High Court announced that its Grand Panel would review a FRAND declaration case, Apple v. Samsung • Two preliminary injunction cases filed by Samsung against Apple • A DJ action for confirmation of non-existence of liability on the part of Apple • Grand Panel consists of the four presiding judges of all four divisions plus one judge • Two law firms, Ohno& Partners and MOFO (Ito & Mitomi), announced that they are accepting opinions from the public until March 24, 2014 • Collected opinions will be submitted to the IP High Court as part of documentary evidence • The very first time a civil court asked for public opinion

  3. Apple v. Samsung – District Court • The court found the patent valid, essential to the tech standards, and infringed with respect to two Apple products • But the patent cannot be enforced because the enforcement would be the abuse of rights under Article 1(3) of the Civil Code

  4. Apple v. Samsung – District Court • In concluding the 107-page decision on the DJ action, the court noted as follows: • The defendant violated an obligation based on a principle of faith and trust to provide material information during the preparatory stage of a license agreement on FRAND terms concerning the patent in question and to faithfully negotiate. Also, the defendant continues to maintain, as of the date of closing arguments, petitions for preliminary injunction orders against importation and sale, etc., based on the present patent. Furthermore, it was more than two years later that Samsung reported the existence of the disputed patent to the ETSI after Samsung presented a request for technical changes that were eventually adopted as part of the technical standards. In consideration of these circumstances as well as other events that occurred during the licensing negotiations concerning the present patent, it is not allowed, as it would constitute an abuse of right, to enforce the right to obtain damages based on the present patent on Products 2 and 4.

  5. Soliciting Opinions on a Single Issue • Whether there is any restriction on practice of rights to seek an injunction or damages based on a patent that is essential to the standard set by a standard setting organization when so-called (F)RAND declaration (a declaration that [a patentee] will grant a license on (Fair,) Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory conditions) is made.

  6. Want to file a brief?

More Related