• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.57-72
• /
• 2011

According to Japanese Patent Act, the Japanese Patent Office, administrative organization, was authorized to decide validation of patent. However, Supreme Court of Japan held that a court is able to decide the invalidation of patent in 11th April, 2000, which caused the reform of Japanese Patent Act in June 2004. Reformed Patent Act established the article 104-3 and makes it for a court to decide the patentability where there are grounds for a patent invalidation. Through this amendment to the Patent Act, the legislative system to decide the patent validation has been reorganized and furthermore alleged infringer is allowed to argue against the patent validation by making use of infringement litigation procedure through defenses against patent invalidation as well as invalidation trial procedure for to file a request for a trial for patent invalidation to the Japanese Patent Office. That is to say, the article 104-3 was established in the Japanese Patent Act in the wake of Kilby, and thus a court, which is judicial authority, not administrative disposition agency is also able to decide the patent validation. Thus this article discuss how a court, the authority of which only patent infringement cases fell under, has been authorized to arbitrate cases about the patent validation and the decision of the patent validation in a court.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.7 no.6
• /
• pp.1319-1336
• /
• 2006

The successive round of talks oil Korea-USA Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has continued, and it also has the Intellectual property(IPR) unit. Until now, tile one of most disputing concerns in IPR unit through talks is the limitation of compulsory license of claimed invention. The US is urging to establish a safeguard for IPR, as similar measure of the US, to protecting the profit of the US enterprises through these on-going talks, it is more likely expected to take the offensive about infringement of the patent seriously. Based on the current circumstances, the provision strategy study is needed to obtain Korea inventors the first inventor defense under the US patent law system as well as understand the current Korea's patent law and its revision against that in the US. In patent Law, both nations with first to file system and first to invent system permit a prior user of an invention to continue to use the invention notwithstanding its subsequent patenting by another under being subject to certain qualifications and limitations, even though a patent by a later inventor is granted. Normally, the first inventor defense has been used to compensate the drawbacks of the first to file system. The US patent Law, however, adopting the first to invent system admits the first inventor defense. Therefore, pursuing counteract provision under consideration with Korean patent Law system and research environment along with investigating the reason why the US adopted its patent law system, the scope of right, and the new reform of Act. 2005 of the institute, which promotes the first Korean inventor to possess the defense right of the US, provides certain preparations for Korean companies against the expected offensive from the US ones under the US patent Law system.