1 / 14

Double Track in Invalidity Defense & Section 104 ter of JP Patent Law

Double Track in Invalidity Defense & Section 104 ter of JP Patent Law. AIPLA IP Practice in Japan Committee 2007 MWI Pre-Meeting, at New Orleans Jan. 23, 2007 Hirokazu Honda, Attorney-at-Law Abe, Ikubo & Katayama. Who Judges Invalidation?.

coty
Download Presentation

Double Track in Invalidity Defense & Section 104 ter of JP Patent Law

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. Double Track in Invalidity Defense & Section 104ter of JP Patent Law AIPLA IP Practice in Japan Committee 2007 MWI Pre-Meeting, at New Orleans Jan. 23, 2007 Hirokazu Honda, Attorney-at-Law Abe, Ikubo & Katayama

  2. Who Judges Invalidation? • JPO determines validity of a patent in an invalidation trial. • Court does not invalidate a patent in an infringement suit. • IP High Court reviews the JPO decision. • It does not decide on validity but review legality of the decision. • If the Court reverses the JPO decision, it remands the decision so that JPO reconsiders the validity of the patent. Abe, Ikubo & Katayama

  3. Defendant’s Defense Before 2000 • When an invalidation trial was filed with JPO an infringement suit might be suspended at court’s discretion to wait for JPO decision. • Defendant could assert limiting the claim scope based on prior art reference(s) that should have invalidate the claim. Abe, Ikubo & Katayama

  4. Inconsistent Double Track Invalidity • Osteoporosis Drug Case (Shizuoka District Court) • Mar. ’94: Court Order for Damages JPY728 mil.・・・Valid & Infringement • Apr. ’94: JPO Decision “Invalid” 3.5 yrs after Filing an Invalidation Trial • Anti-allergic Drug Case (Tokyo District Court) • Oct. ’92: Court Order for Injunction・・・Valid & Infringement • Mar. ’94: JPO Decision “Invalid” • If a patent is enforced and then later invalidated, the patentee is basically liable for damages incurred to the accused infringer; but irreparable damages left. Abe, Ikubo & Katayama

  5. Kilby Case • A court in an infringement case can determine whether or not sufficient grounds to invalidate the patent exist, even before the JPO decision invalidating the patent becomes final. • If the court finds a sufficient ground to invalidate the patent, enforcement of the patent would be an abuse of rights and should not be allowed. • Judgment of the Sup. Ct., the Third Party Bench, Apr. 11, 2000 (Case No. 1998(O)No.364) Abe, Ikubo & Katayama

  6. Continuing Inconsistent Double Track • Slot Machine Case • Mar. ’02: Dist. Court Ordered JPY7.4 bil.+0.9 bil. • Same Day, JPO sent Notice of Cause for Invalidation ⇒ In Jan. ’03, Invalidation Decision ⇒ High Court Affirmed the JPO Decision • Filtering Device Case • First, JPO upheld the patent in an invalidation trial. • Then, the Dist. Court in an infringement suit found the patent invalid due to lack of an inventive step. Abe, Ikubo & Katayama

  7. JP Patent Law § 104ter • Kilby Case requires “sufficient ground” of invalidity; Subsequent court decisions did not very much address the sufficiency requirement ⇒ abandoned the requirement • §104ter, para. 1 • In a patent infringement litigation, if the patent is found to be invalidated by an invalidation trial, the patent shall not be enforced against the adverse party. Abe, Ikubo & Katayama

  8. JP Patent Law § 104ter • No need to wait for an invalidation trial ⇒The Court judges whether it is likely that a patent is invalidated if JPO holds a trial. • If an allegation or defense is presented for unreasonably delaying the proceedings, the court may dismiss it. Abe, Ikubo & Katayama

  9. Another Reform of Patent Law • Exchange of Information b/w Court & JPO Court (Infringement Suit) Presence/Absence & Conclusion of an Invalidation Trial Request for Docket of the Infringement Lawsuit Filing and Completion of Infringement Suit Invalidity Defense made by Alleged Infringer JPO (Invalidation Trial) Abe, Ikubo & Katayama

  10. Aggressive Judgment on Invalidity • Infringement Suits in Tokyo & Osaka Dist. Courts from Apr. 2000 to 2005 • Patentees Lost in 80% Cases [Grounds] • Non-Infringing: 68% • Invalidity: 19% • Both: 13% • Among the Cases with Invalidity Defense: • The validity issue was addressed in more than 50% cases. • The patent was found Invalid in 40% cases. Abe, Ikubo & Katayama

  11. More Aggressive Judgment on Invalidity after 104ter Introduced? • Infringement Suits in Tokyo & Osaka Dist. Courts & IP High Court from Apr. 2005 to 2006 Abe, Ikubo & Katayama

  12. More Aggressive Judgment on Invalidity after 104ter Introduced? Abe, Ikubo & Katayama

  13. Summary • The courts now judge validity without hesitation and find a patent invalid in most cases. • The ground to find invalidity is lack of an inventive step in many cases. Patentees should be prepared for arguments on an inventive step (obviousness) in infringement suit. • Patentees need to be prepared to convince the judges, lay persons on technology. Abe, Ikubo & Katayama

  14. Thank you for your attention! Hirokazu Honda, Attorney-at-Law Abe, Ikubo & Katayama E-mail: honda@aiklaw.co.jp URL: http://www.aiklaw.co.jp Phone: +81-3-3273-2600 Fax: +81-3-3273-2033

More Related