NAKAMURA & PARTNERS
アクセス
  • MESSAGE
  • 事務所紹介
  • 業務内容
  • 弁護士・弁理士
  • 執筆・講演情報
  • 法情報提供
  • 採用情報
  • ご挨拶
  • 事務所紹介
  • 業務内容
  • 弁護士・弁理士
  • 執筆・講演情報
  • 法情報提供
  • 採用情報

法情報提供

  • 全カテゴリ
  • 特許
  • 特許 (Links)
  • 商標
  • 商標 (Links)
  • 意匠
  • 意匠 (Links)
  • 著作権
  • 著作権 (Links)
  • 知財一般
  • 知財一般 (Links)
  • 法律
  • 法律 (Links)
■

[Patent★★] “Wiring Box” Case: Litigation of Rescinding the Trial Decisions Made by the JPO on a Patent Case.A case in which the Intellectual Property High Court held that when a divisional application was filed with a parent, child, and grandchild applications …, the filing date of the grandchild’s application was not retroactive to the filing date of the parent’s application if the child application violated the divisional requirement/added new matter.

February 1,2023

Intellectual Property Hight Court Case No.10263 (Gyo-ke) 2016, September 26, 2017 (Presiding Judge Takabe)

 

[Summary of the Judgement and Comments]

 
1. Excerpts from the decision (“Wiring Box” case decision)

“The following are the substantive requirements to find the divisional application to be legal: [i] the description or drawing of the original application includes two or more inventions; [ii] the invention contained in the new application is part of the invention stated in the application or drawing of the original application; and [iii] the invention contained in the new application falls within the matters stated in the original description, etc., attached to the original application. In order to deem that the application in question (the “Application”), which is the fifth generation counted from the first application, was filed at the time when the first application was filed, the Application, fourth application, third application and second application must respectively satisfy the requirements for divisional application prescribed in [i] to [iii] above and the Invention must fall within the scope of matters stated in the original description etc.”

 
2. If amended after filing a child application ⇒ Amendment has retroactive effect

This point is well established by court decisions. Even if the child application did not add a new matter at the time of filing, if the amendment was made after filing and resulted in the addition of a new matter, the retroactive effect of the amendment makes the child application illegal for violating the division requirement/added new matter, and the filing date of the grandchild application is not retroactive to the filing date of the parent application.

・Tokyo District Court Case No.14649 (Wa) 2004“The call control system of the telephone” case (Presiding Judge Shitara).

・Tokyo High Court Case No.65 (Wa) 2003 “The buried concrete object” case (Presiding Judge Shinohara)

・Oosaka High Court Case No.2776 (Ne) 2002 “The buried concrete object” case (Presiding Judge Wakabayashi)

 
3. Some Consideration (Measures to be taken when a child application is refused for addition of new matter)

In light of the court decisions introduced above, when a child application is refused for addition of a new matter, the child application should never be left unexplored when it is further divided into a grandchild application, and even if the child application is finally refused, an amendment should be made to eliminate the reason for refusal for addition of a new matter.
 

Writer: Hideki TAKAISHI

Supervising editor: Kazuhiko YOSHIDA

 

Hideki TAKAISHI

Attorney at Law & Patent Attorney

Nakamura & Partners

Room No. 616, Shin-Tokyo Building,

3-3-1 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku,

Tokyo 100-8355, JAPAN

 
<< Prev    Next >>

  • サイトマップ
  • 利用規約
  • 免責事項
  • 個人情報保護方針
  • 事業主行動計画

Copyright © 2023 Nakamura & Partners All Rights Reserved.

  1. サイトマップ
  2. 利用規約
  3. 免責事項
  1. 個人情報保護方針
  2. 事業主行動計画

Copyright © 2023 Nakamura & Partners All Rights Reserved.