Post on 31-Mar-2015
PATENT PRACTICE and LTIGATION
IN JAPAN
OHNO & PARTNERSAttorney-at-law admitted in JAPAN and N.Y.
KEA PATENT SEMINAR
PATENT PRACTICE and LTIGATION
IN JAPAN
OHNO & PARTNERS Attorney-at-law admitted in JAPAN and N.Y.
Seiji OHNO
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
How to form a Litigation Team
Bengoshi-- Lawyers, No technical background, Litigator
Benrishi -- Patent prosecutors, Technical background, Assistant
Importance of a First Chair Bengoshi
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Two Types of Litigation
Honso (a main lawsuit) and Karishobun (a preliminary injunction)Honso
Fromal procedure, Injunctive relief and damages, 14 months
Karisyobun Tentative Procedure, Injunctive relief only, 10months
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Hoso and Karisyobun
Filing Honso Filing Karishobun
Instruction by Judge
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Jurisdiction
For First Instance
Tokyo and Osaka Only
Special IP Division
Chousakan (Technical Assistant)
Tokyo District Court and Osaka District Court
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Jurisdiction
Appellate Procedure for IP High Court
Exclusive Jurisdiction over Appellate Cases
- Patent, Utility Model, IC Chip, Computer Program Copyright
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
IP HIGH Court
En Banc System was introduced from 2005
①Ichitaro Case(Sep.30, 2005)
②Parameter Patent Case(Nov.11, 2005)
③Inc Cartridge Case (Jan. 31, 2006)
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Procedure
①Filing a complaint with a district court ②Complaint and Summons are served on the
defendant by the court ③Courts set a first hearing date④At the first hearing, the complaint and the
answer are submitted⑤At the hearing, the presiding judge asks
questions of both sides to clarify their allegation and schedule a next hearing
Judgment
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Validity Defense
Before Kilby Supreme Court Case(2000)- No Validity Defense in infringement Case
Kilby Supreme Court Case - Not Enforceable due to Abuse of Patent Right
- Clear and Convincing Evidence (Invalidity )
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Validity Defense
Art. 104-3 of Patent Law(2005)- Validity Defense- No Clear and Convincing Evidence
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Validity Defense
Validity Defense in Court
Invalidation Trial in JPO
No Double Chance
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
95%84%88%
001 %
82%
5%16%12%
0%
%18
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
NumberValidityDefense
+Invalidation
Trial
判断相違 2 0 3 4 1判断一致 9 18 22 21 21
2000年(4月~) 2001年 2002年 2003年 2004年
Discrepancy
Constistency
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
④ 裁判所における特許性の判断結果無効抗弁がなされた侵害事件において、裁判所が権利の有効性について判断したものは 約6割。権利無効と判断したものは、全体の約4割。
Validity Defense
229/401
No Judgment
Invalid
Valid
April, 2000 ~ December, 2004
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Validity Strategy
Complex Technology; Double Patent Issue etc.
both Validity Defense and Invaldation Trial
Others
Validity Defense only
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Doctrine of Equivalents (Ball Spline Case, 1998)
①Non Essential Element: elements of the claim to which the doctrine of equivalents is applicable ar
e not essential for the invention
②Chikan Kanousei: a claimed element can be interchanged with a corresponding element of a
n accused product or method because the corresponding element produc
es substantially the same result in substantially the same way ③Chikan Youisei: an ordinary person skilled in the art could have known of the interchangea
bility between the claimed element and the corresponding element at the time of manufacturing the accused products, etc.
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Doctrine of Prosecution History Estoppel Traditional Test
-Deliberate Exclusion and Limitation Theory (Ishikiteki Gentei Jogai Setsu)
This rule states that the doctrine of equivalents cannot apply to a particular "limitation X" in a claim which has been deliberately limited by the applicant. In other words, when products or processes which do not meet "limitation X" are deliberately excluded by an applicant during the prosecution history, application of the doctrine of equivalents to "limitation X" is prohibited.
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Doctrine of Prosecution History Estoppel
Osaka High Court Approach in Genentech Case -Only amendments or remarks made in
order to overcome prior art rejections trigger prosecution history estoppel
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Doctrine of Prosecution History Estoppel
Supreme Court Approach in Ball Spline Case
Deliberate Exclusion and Limitation Theory (Ishikiteki Gentei Jogai Setsu)
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Damages (Lost Profit)
①Arze v. Summy (2002)
Damages: 84 Million U.S. Dollars
Lost Profit Rate: 56 %
② Toshiba v. Familia (2003)
Damages: 15 Million U.S. Dollars
Lost Profit Rate: 33 %
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Lost Profit
102 §1 of Patent (1) amounts of infringement products sold by
an infringer(2) profits per one product which the patent
owner earns by selling patented products
Lost Profit = (1) ☓(2)
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Lost Profit
Denial of Market Share Theory - Patent Owner Share 20% 20% Lost Profit 80% Reasonable Royalty
Incremental Income Approach
- Gross Profit – Incremental Costs
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
① 侵害事件の地裁判決動向(特実) 約8割は権利者が敗訴となっている。(ただし、和解などにより終局したものは除く)
5. 侵害訴訟 と 無効審判 の 動向
17%14%21%19%
15%
83%84%
79%78%
82%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Case No.
権利者敗訴 61 80 71 55 58一部勝訴 2 3 0 1 0権利者勝訴 11 19 19 9 12
2000年(4月~) 2001年 2002年 2003年 2004年
74
102
90
6570
Lost
Partial WinWin
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
FUJITSU v SAMSUNG
April 2004
Filing Preliminary Injunction against Samsung Japan before Tokyo District Court
Filing a Law Suit against Samsung America and Samsung Korea before U.S. court
Filing Motion to bar Imported Products by Samsung with Tokyo Customs
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
MATSUSHITA v LG
November, 2004
Filing Preliminary Injunction against LG Japan before Tokyo District Court
Filing Motion to bar Imported Products by LG with Tokyo Customs
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
REVISION OF CUSOTM LAW
From April, 2003, Revised Custom Law in effective
Strong Weapons to Owners of Patents, Utility Model Rights and Design Patents
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
MAJOR POINTS OF NEW LAW
Before New Law, only Third Party Observations are granted for owners of Patents, Utility Model Rights and Design Patents
New Law gives Rights to bar importations of good accused of Patent infringement
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
SUPREME COURT DECISION in CARD READER CASE
Extraterritorial Application of Patent violates Territorialism
Seeking injunction, claiming damages against foreign companies is not admitted
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
US vs JAPAN
Fujitsu Litigation in US Defendant: Samsung U.S. and
Samsung Korea
Fujitsu Litigation in Japan Defendant: Only Samsung Japan
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
CUTSOMS PROCEDURE
Filing Complaint with Customs Office
Check of Custom Office
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
CHECK LIST Ownership Registration Certificate Fact of Infringement Evidence to show infringement (attorney’s
opinion etc.) Custom office can identify infringement goods
Acceptance
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Effect of Acceptance
Custom Office Suspends Importation Goods
at least 20 Days Until Importer Files
Application to Release Suspended Goods with Bond Money
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Judgment Procedure in Customs Office
Only Infringement Issue
No Validity Issue
OHNO & PARTNERS http://www.oslaw.org
Inquiry to JPO
1. Customs Office may inquire of JPO2. JPO prepare Opinion within 30 Days3. Importer may provide Opinion and
Evidence to JPO4. After 10 Days from the Opinion
from JPO, Importer can Release Importation Goods