Brief procedure of the copyright registration and Effect of the registrationin Japan

Brief procedure of the copyright registration in Japan

The copyright registration is classified into three types.

(i)   Registration of true name

(ii)  Registration of the date of creation of computer program

(iii) Registration of the date of first publication

As to (i), the copyright holder of a work that is made public, anonymously or pseudonymously, may have his true name registered with respect to said work.

As to (ii), the copyright holder of a computer program work may have the date of the creation of his computer program work registered.
However, the foregoing shall not apply where six months have passed since the creation of said work.

As to (iii), the copyright holder of a work, as well as the publisher of an anonymous or pseudonymous work, may have registered said work's date of first publication or the date when the work was first made public.

              When the copyright holder file the application for the copyright registration with Agency for Cultural Affairs (not Japan patent Office), the officer will conduct a formally check for the application.

              So, the officer dose not conduct the substantive examination (e.g. whether the date of creation of first publication is true or not).

              For required time from filing to registration, it will take at least one month. For computer program, it will take at least one week from filing to registration.

Effect of the registration of the copyright in Japan

              The true name or the date as registered shall be presumed to be the copyright holder's name of the work, or the date of creation or first publication.

              However, the true name or the date as registered shall not be deemed to be the copyright holder's name of the work, or the date of creation or first publication.

              Also, after registration, the matters set forth in the following items may be asserted against a third party:

(i)　the transfer (other than by inheritance or other universal successions) of the copyright or a restriction on the disposal of the copyright;

(ii)　the establishment, transfer, modification or termination of the pledge on a copyright (other than termination by reason of merger or by reason of the termination of the copyright or the claim secured by the pledge), or a restriction on the disposal of a pledge established on the copyright.

              Thus, we do not think that our clients will obtain big benefit, such as patent right, from the copyright registration.

Estimate of Registration of the copyright in Japan

 

	Registration fee(official)	Registration fee for computer program(official)
Registration of true name	JPY9000	JPY56100
Registration of the date of creation of computer program		JPY50100
Registration of the date of first publication	JPY3000	JPY50100

Our professional fee is JPY30000 (SK IP Law Firm)

SKIP WORK-FLOW

SKIP WORK-FLOW
We want to give an explanation to our streamlined work-flow named as "SKIP WORK-FLOW" which will "skip" sluggish process of patent prosecution procedure under the Japan Patent Practice.  

For example, our filing reports or OA reports are information-intensive and convenient for US Patent Attorneys (and clients).  Please review an Example of our OA reports as follows.

We guarantee ease of use and low cost of our filing reports or OA reports (with our comments),
since all the information involved in the patent prosecution procedure is included in our report (in one PDF format).

In our format, there are hyperlinks which links Examiner's comments and the cited figures or descriptions of Citations.  Therefore, you do not need to search the the cited figures or descriptions of Citations when you review our OA reports.  Furthermore, there are other additional distinctive inventions on your usability in our OA reports.

We will review the US and EP cases before drafting our comments in order to develop an integrated international patent prosecution strategy.  That is, we will study the US and EP file history, and benefit from US and EP examiners' (and attorneys') viewpoints.  It would save the cost of our professional fees dramatically and convenient for your review.

In addition, please be noted that you can have a Video Conference with us via SKYPE after reviewing our OA reports.  Therefore, if you have any questions about our OA reports, you can ask us some questions interactively.

We believe that your will be surprised at our innovative  "SKIP WORK-FLOW", when we make a presentation via SKYPE.

Our "SKIP WORK-FLOW" can save your client's IP budget at a 20-40% Discount!

No Fax Charge!
No Fedex or DHL Charge!
No Copy Charge!
No Telephone Charge!

No hidden cost! No additional cost!
We only charge our Professional Fees (Average: 100,000JPY-150,000JPY at 1 OA response) , Translation Fees and Official Fees.

How to protect medical device inventions in Japan #2

Under  the  revised  guidelines,  a  method  for  controlling  the operation of a medical device is not considered to be classified as a “method for treatment of the human body by surgery or therapy or a diagnostic method practised on the human body” as long as it is the function of the medical device that is represented as a method.

 

The method for controlling the operation of the medical device  here  may  include  not  only  a  method  for  controlling the internal operation of the medical device but also a functional  and/or  systematic  operation  of  the  medical  device, such as the moving, opening and/or closing of incising means in accordance with an operating signal, the emitting and/or receiving of radiation, electromagnetic waves, sound waves or the like.

 

Methods  involving  acts  to  be  performed  by  a  medical doctor (for example, acts of a medical doctor to operate a device  in  order  to  provide  medical  treatment)  and/or  the device acting on the human body (for example, the incision and/or  excision  of  a  specific  part  of  a patient  by  the  device)  are  not  considered  to  be  methods  for  controlling  the operation of the medical device.

 

Therefore, for applicants who wish to include acts that may be performed by a medical doctor during the operation of a device  in  claims  directed  to  a  medical device,   we   recommend   drafting   the claims to refer to the acts to be performed in passive form, or by referring to a “predetermined portion” or “predetermined parameters”.

 

For example, the phrases “accepting instructions of a medical doctor using an input unit”, “setting an incision and/or excision unit to a predetermined portion of a patient on the basis  of  said  instructions  by  a  medical  doctor”  or  “setting specific functions of an incision and/or excision unit to predetermined parameters on the basis of said instructions by a medical doctor” do not include acts performed by a medical doctor  to  operate  a  device.

 

By  using  the  passive  form  and expressions such as “predetermined portion” and “predetermined parameters”, it will be possible to obtain broader protection of methods for controlling the operation of the medical  devices,  leading  to  more  efficient  protection  medical device inventions in Japan.

 

The passive form, “predetermined portion” form and “predetermined parameter” form are unfortunately not described in detail  in  the  revised  guidelines,  but  in  meetings  between  the Japanese   Patent   Office   and   Japanese   Patent   Attorneys Association  (JPAA),  these  forms  were  agreed  as  not  including acts to be performed by a medical doctor in operating a device, and therefore considered to be industrially applicable (Mr. Okuno was a member of the guideline revising team at the JPAA). 

 

Under the revised guidelines, the scope of protection available to medical devices has been dramatically broadened in Japan. 

 

This represents a new opportunity for globally minded medical  device  manufacturers  to  make  inroads  in  the  Japanese medical device market, a market worth ¥2.5 trillion per year, by acquiring patents on methods for controlling the operation of medical devices.

How to protect medical device inventions in Japan #1

I n  Japan,  medical  method  inventions  are  not  patentable, since  such  inventions  are  considered  to  be  incapable  of industrial  application  (Japanese  Patent  Law,  Article  29).

 

The  Japanese  Patent  Office’s  examination  guidelines expressly state that methods for treatment of the human body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human body are industrially inapplicable inventions.

 

On  the  other  hand,  medical  devices  and  pharmaceuticals are products, and are considered to be industrially applicable. Therefore,  medical  device  inventions  and  pharmaceutical inventions are patentable in Japan.

 

However, a much-debated issue has been whether methods for controlling the operation of medical devices are patentable in Japan. In response, the examination guidelines were revised in 2005, making it clear that methods for controlling  the  operation  of  a  medical device  are  considered  to  be  industrially applicable in certain circumstances.

 

For  example,  the  following  claim  A  is considered  to  be  industrially  applicable under the revised guidelines:

 

Claim A

 

A  method  for  controlling  the  respec-tive parts of an X-ray CT scanner by control  means,  comprising  the  steps of:

generating  X-rays  by  controlling  X-ray  generating  means,  detecting  X-rays passed through the human body by controlling X-ray detecting means, 

reconstructing  the  detected  data and converting the detected data into picture data for display.

 

In this claim, the term “generating X-rays  by  controlling  X-ray  generating means”  is  construed  to  mean  that  the “X-ray  generating  means”  belonging  to the X-ray CT scanner generates X-rays, but not to an extent that the human body is  affected  by  the  X-rays;  thus,  the claimed method is judged not to involve the device acting on the human body. 

 

Furthermore,  the  term  “detecting  X- rays passed through the human body bycontrolling  X-ray  detecting  means”  represents  the  function whereby the “X-ray detecting means” provided to the X-ray CT  scanner  receives  a  signal  (X-rays)  passed  through  the human body. As a result, the claimed method is judged not to include acts to be performed by a medical doctor or involving the device acting on the human body.

 

Therefore, the claimed method is considered to be a method for  controlling  the  operation  of  a  medical  device,  since  the function of the medical device is represented as a method, and the method does not include acts to be performed by a medical  doctor  and/or  the  device  acting  on  the  human  body. 

 

Accordingly, the method is not considered to be a “method for treatment of the human body by surgery or therapy or a diagnostic method practiced on the human body”.

 

On the other hand, the following claim B is not considered to be industrially applicable under the revised guidelines:

 

Claim B

 

A method for controlling the respective parts of an X-ray CT scanner by control means, comprising the steps of: 

exposing the human body to X-rays by controlling X-ray generating  means,  

detecting  x-rays  passed  through  the human  body  by  controlling  X-ray  detecting  means,  and

reconstructing the detected data and converting the detect- ed data into picture data for display.

 

The  difference  between  these  claims  is  that  the  term “generating X-rays” in claim A is changed to “exposing the human  body  to  X-rays”  in  claim  B.  In  addition,  the  term “exposing the human body to X-rays” involves the device acting on the human body; thus, it is not considered to be a  method  for  controlling  the  operation  of  the  medical device.

 

The method in this claim corresponds to a diagnostic method practised on the human body, since it detects the structures or functions of organs in the human body to detect diseases and disorders by exposing the human body to X-rays and detecting the  X-rays  passed  through  the  human  body.  

 

Accordingly,  the claimed method involves a method for treatment of the human body by therapy practised on the human body as part of the invention; thus, it is considered to be a “method for treatment of  the  human  body  by  surgery  or  therapy  or  a  diagnostic method practiced on the human body”.

 

To take another example, the following claim C is considered  to  be  industrially  applicable  under  the  revised guidelines:

 

Claim C

 

A  method  for  controlling  the  operation  of  a  bodily  fluid sampling  device comprising:

a  hollow  piercing  element installed  inside  a  housing,  

a  sample  extracting  tube  communicating  with  the  piercing  element,  

a  sampling  vessel connected with the end of the tube and having a pressure detecting  unit  inside,  and  

a  negative  pressure  generating unit providing a negative pressure on the sampling vessel, 

wherein a suppressing means controlling the operation of the  negative  pressure  generating  means  is  operated  when the pressure detecting means detects a pressure lower than the  predetermined  value  in  the  operation  of  the  negative pressure generating unit.

 

In this claim, the phrase “suppressing means controlling the  operation  of  the  negative  pressure  generating  means  is operated when the pressure detecting means detects a pressure lower than the predetermined value in the operation of the negative pressure generating unit” is construed to mean that  the  “suppressing  means”  provided  to  the  bodily  fluid sampling  device  is  operated  but  not  to  an  extent  that  the volume of the bodily fluid absorbed is changed as a result of the  operation  of  the  suppressing  means,  so  the  claimed method  is  judged  not  to  involve  the  device  acting  on  the human body.

 

Therefore, the claimed method is considered  to  be  a  method  for  controlling the  operation  of  a  medical  device  since the function of the medical device is represented  as  a  method,  and  the  method does not include acts to be performed by a medical doctor and/or the device acting on  the  human  body.  

 

As  a  result,  the method is not considered to be a “method for the treatment of the human body by surgery or

therapy or a diagnostic method practised on the human body.” 

 

On the other hand, the following claim D is not considered to be industrially applicable under the revised guidelines:

 

Claim D

A method for sampling bodily fluid by a bodily fluid sampling  device comprising:

a  hollow  piercing  element installed inside housing, a sample extracting tube communicating  with  the  piercing  element,  and  

an  absorbing means,

wherein the piercing element pierces the vein, and the bodily fluid is absorbed from the piercing element pro-

vided in the vein into the sample extracting tube.

 

In this claim, the term “the piercing element is pierced” is not a step carried out by a means provided on this fluid sampling device but by the action of a medical doctor to obtain a sample of bodily fluid by using this device. (Note: In this case, the method may also be judged to include action on the human body by the piercing element.)

 

In addition, the term “the bodily fluid is absorbed from the piercing  element  arranged  in  the  vein  blood  vessel  into  the sample extracting tube” is construed as involving   the   device   acting   on   the human  body,  as  body  fluid  is  extracted from the human body.

 

The claimed method, therefore, does not correspond to a method for controlling the operation of the medical device.

 

Accordingly,    the    claimed    method includes  a  method  for  diagnosing  the human body as a part of the invention; thus,  the  method  is  considered  to  be  a “method  for  treatment  of  the  human body by surgery or therapy or a diagnostic method practiced on the human body.”

Please be noted that it is not necessary to submit a POA to JPO, when you file a new patent application with JPO.

Please be noted that it is not necessary to submit a POA to JPO, when you file a new patent application with JPO.

In general, JPO requires a POA only when the applicant wants to file an appeal.
So, in most cases, a POA is not necessary at all.

The applicant has at least three months for filing a POA.
So, the best practice is not to file a POA now, and file it when filing an appeal.

Please read the following blog post in order to know how to apply for patent
in Japan.

1. Paris Route
http://japanpatent.jp/4-scheme-of-patent-application-with-jpo

2.  PCT Route
http://japanpatent.jp/5-pct-route

J-Dream 2 is the No.1 academic research paper DB in Japanese Language.

You can obtain a copy of an academic research paper published in Japanese Language
by J-Dream 2 (No.1 academic research paper DB in Japanese  Language).

J-Dream 2
http://pr.jst.go.jp/jdream2/

If the academic research paper is included in the J-Dream 2, it is easy to obtain it.