最近 日本의 知的財産紛争処理制의 改正에 대하여

Study on a Reform for Trial System and Intellectual Property Lawsuit in Japan The experience with a dual track invalidation system in Japan involving both the JPO and the district courts demonstrates that both invalidation schemes are complementary and serve to increase the universe of issued patents that are challenged by third parties. The specific differences between the two invalidation options that are outlined in detail in this work indicate that while a patent may be challenged in both venues in the vast majority of cases, there are sound economic and institutional reasons for maintaining (or creating) a patent system with the ability to raise patent validity challenges in both the Patent Office and in the courts. In recent years, as the importance enforcing patent rights has grown, improvement of the procedural law-related aspects of such enforcement have been demanded. In the past, the procedural systems to settle disputes were revised several times with a view to “speeding up trials”. It is now necessary to consider further revisions so that disputes can be settled with a single procedure. In Japan, April 2000, the Supreme Court held in the Kilby case that enforcement of patent rights shall be deemed an abuse of right if a court handling a patent infringement lawsuit considers that there apparently exists a reason for invalidation of the patent right in question. As a result, it has become necessary to examine the relationship between judgments of invalidation rendered in the trial for invalidation at the Japan Patent Office and judgments of invalidation rendered by courts in lawsuit. In light of these circumstances, this study had widely taken up points at issue with respect to how the appeal system before the Patent Office and intellectual property lawsuits before courts should be, and then tries to consider measures for dealing with the situation.