PATENT PRACTICE and LTIGATION IN JAPAN OHNO & PARTNERS Attorney-at-law admitted in JAPAN and N.Y.

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


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


Hoso and Karisyobun

Filing Honso Filing Karishobun

Instruction by Judge


Jurisdiction

For First Instance

　　Tokyo and Osaka Only

Special IP Division

Chousakan (Technical Assistant)

Tokyo District Court and Osaka District Court


Jurisdiction

Appellate Procedure for IP High Court

Exclusive Jurisdiction over Appellate Cases

- Patent, Utility Model, IC Chip, Computer Program Copyright


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)


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


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 )


Validity Defense

Art. 104-3 of Patent Law(2005)- Validity Defense- No Clear and Convincing Evidence


Validity Defense

Validity Defense in Court

Invalidation Trial in JPO

No Double Chance


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


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


Validity Strategy

Complex Technology; Double Patent Issue etc.

both Validity Defense and Invaldation Trial

Others

Validity Defense only


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.


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.


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


Doctrine of Prosecution History Estoppel

Supreme Court Approach in Ball Spline Case

Deliberate Exclusion and Limitation Theory (Ishikiteki Gentei Jogai Setsu)


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 %


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)


Lost Profit

Denial of Market Share Theory - Patent Owner Share 20% 20% Lost Profit 80% Reasonable Royalty

Incremental Income Approach

- Gross Profit – Incremental Costs


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


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


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


REVISION OF CUSOTM LAW

From April, 2003, Revised Custom Law in effective

Strong Weapons to Owners of Patents, Utility Model Rights and Design Patents


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


SUPREME COURT DECISION in CARD READER CASE

Extraterritorial Application of Patent violates Territorialism

Seeking injunction, claiming damages against foreign companies is not admitted


US vs JAPAN

Fujitsu Litigation in US Defendant: Samsung U.S. and

Samsung Korea

Fujitsu Litigation in Japan Defendant: Only Samsung Japan


CUTSOMS PROCEDURE

Filing Complaint with Customs Office

Check of Custom Office


CHECK LIST Ownership Registration Certificate Fact of Infringement Evidence to show infringement (attorney’s

opinion etc.) Custom office can identify infringement goods

Acceptance


Effect of Acceptance

Custom Office Suspends Importation Goods

at least 20 Days Until Importer Files

Application to Release Suspended Goods with Bond Money


Judgment Procedure in Customs Office

Only Infringement Issue

No Validity Issue


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

PATENT PRACTICE and LTIGATION IN JAPAN OHNO & PARTNERS Attorney-at-law admitted in JAPAN and N.Y.

Documents

Transcript of PATENT PRACTICE and LTIGATION IN JAPAN OHNO & PARTNERS Attorney-at-law admitted in JAPAN and N.Y.