Please feel free to contact us by this form. Revision of fees relating to patent and trademark in the revision of the Patent Law in 2008 The Patent Law was revised to reduce the fees relating to patent and trademark on or after June 1, 2008. The revised fees are as follows. 1. Application Patent application ¥ 15,000 Application in foreign language ¥ 24,000 Procedure prescribed in Article 184quinquies (1) ¥ 15,000 Procedure prescribed in Article 184vicies (1) ¥ 15,000 Trademark application ¥ 3,400 + ¥ 8,600 per classification Defensive mark application ¥ 6,800 + ¥ 17,200 per classification 2. Annual fee / Registration fee For patent applications filed on or after January 1, 1988 (For patent applications requested for examination on or after April 1, 2004) 1-3rd year: annually, ¥ 2,300 + ¥ 200 per claim 4-6th year: annually, ¥ 7,100 + ¥ 500 per claim 7-9th year: annually, ¥ 21,400 + ¥ 1,700 per claim 10-25th year: annually, ¥ 61,600 + ¥ 4,800 per claim (For patent applications requested for examination before April 1, 2004) 1-3rd year: annually, ¥11,400 + ¥ 1,000 per claim 4-6th year: annually, ¥ 17,900 + ¥ 1,400 per claim 7-9th year: annually, ¥ 35,800 + ¥ 2,800 per claim 10-25th year: annually, ¥ 71,600 + ¥ 5,600 per claim For patent applications filed before December 31, 1987 (For patent applications requested for examination on or after April 1, 2004) 1-3rd year: annually, ¥ 1,500 + ¥ 1,000 per claim 4-6th year: annually, ¥ 4,800 + ¥ 2,900 per claim 7-9th year: annually, ¥ 14,300 + ¥ 8,800 per claim 10-25th year: annually, ¥ 47,500 + ¥ 29,600 per claim (For patent applications requested for examination before April 1, 2004) 1-3rd year: annually, ¥ 7,500 + ¥ 4,900 per claim 4-6th year: annually, ¥ 11,900 + ¥ 7,400 per claim 7-9th year: annually, ¥ 23,800 + ¥ 14,800 per claim 10-25th year: annually, ¥ 47,500 + ¥ 29,600 per claim 3. Registration fee　for trademark Registration fee (including defensive marks) ¥ 37,600 per classification Payment of registration free by installments ¥ 21,900 per classification Renewal fee ¥ 48,500 per classification Payment of renewal free by installments ¥ 28,300 per classification Defensive mark renewal fee ¥ 41,800 per classification 4. International trademark application Fee equivalent to application fee　　¥ 2,700 + ¥ 8,600 per classification Fee equivalent to registration fee　　¥ 37,600 per classification Fee equivalent to renewal fee 　¥ 48,500 per classification Size of reduction of fees related to Patent and Trademark rights decided (Feb 21,2008) The Japan Patent Office (JPO) decided how much they reduce the fee for Patent and Trademark that is put in force in order to diminish the burden of small-and-mid-sized businesses. Especially the annual fee for patents in tenth year or later that place burdens on small-and-mid-sized business will be reduced (12% in average). At the same time, fees related Trademark rights are going to be substantially reduced (43% in average) that small-and-mid-sized businesses have a high proportion of usage. The bill on the Patent Law revision will be submitted during the ordinary parliamentary session in this year. It will be shifted to the new fee structure in June. Rivision of the Seeds and Seedlings Act The Seeds and seedlings Act was revised to protect breeder's rights properly and put in force on 1 Dec, 2007. The major points of the revision are as follows. i) improvement of the rules to facilitate relief in litigation for infringement of the rights ii) strengthening of punishments for infringement of the breeder's rights iii) proper labeling New USPTO Rules 2 On October 31, 2007, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the USPTO from making the Final Rules on claims and continuations effective on November 1, 2007. Please pay a careful attention to future developments of this issue. New USPTO Rules 1 -Effective date: Nov 1, 2007- On August 21, 2007, the United State Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published in the Federal Register new rules that will be effective on November 1, 2007. The major points of the revision are as follows. (1) Applicants may file two continuations, or continuation-in-part ("CIP"), without petition the USPTO. (2) One request for continued examination ("RCE") is permitted as a matter of right for only one application in a patent family. (3) Applicants may be limited up to 5 independent claims and 25 total claims per application under the "5/25 rule". (4) Applicants are required to identify to the USPTO in each of its non-allowed pending application all other commonly owned application(s) or commonly owned patent(s), if any, that have a common inventor and either filing date(s) or priority date(s). This revision to the rules will be applied to all applications which will be pending in USPTO on November 1, 2007 that is the date of implementation of the rules. Since the revision to the rules can severely limit options for prosecution to be taken by applicants, it should be immediately considered what strategies may be devised for filing continuation applications, requests for continued examination and applications with substantially the same claims. Filing date of mail submitted to the JPO accompanied with the revision of the Postal Law 1. The revision to the Postal Law accompanied with the Postal Service Privatization Following "Parcels" mail of post matters pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section 19 of the Patent Law are no longer deemed as post matters on October 1, 2007 or later due to the revision to the Postal Law accompanied with the Postal Service Privatization. If submission for the JPO is held by "Parcels" mail, the arrival date becomes a filing date (the Utility Model Law, Design Law and Trademark Law as well). You-pack (Parcels) EXPACK500 (500yen fixed Parcels) Pospacket (Postal Parcels) You-mail (Booklet Parcels) 2. Notes In design applications, in case of online application, a "supplemental document for patternmaker or sample" should be submitted on the same date when a "patternmaker or sample" substitutes drawings based on the Design Law, Article 6(2). Therefore, if a "patternmaker or sample" is filed by "Parcels" on the online application date, the filing date of the "patternmaker or sample" (arrival date at JPO) could be different from the filing date of the application. As a result, the design application shall be declined as an illegal formality. Therefore, you have to be very careful if you choose the postal service to submit a "patternmaker or sample" for a design application, it is required to be sent by an ordinary post mail applied to Postal Law or a correspondence mail defined by the Correspondence Mail Law, Article 2(3). Delivery of nonpatent literatures cited in office actions Applicants had so far obtained nonpatent literatures cited in office actions by themselves because JPO had not sent them the literatures. Generally it's hard to obtain nonpatent literatures comparing with patent documents available on the Internet or something. However, the Copyright Law's revision (Article 42(2)(i)) allowed us to copy within the limitation of the need when it's considered it's needed for examinations regarding patent and it made applicants possible to obtain nonpatent literatures from JPO. Applicants can receive nonpatent literatures together with the office action from the JPO (by online or mail). Nonpatent literatures cited during the International Search phase and the International Preliminary Examination phase are also subject to this rule. Even though the beginning date of mission is on October 1, 2007, office actions drafted on October 1, 2007 or later are subject to this rule. However, literatures that are provided by the JPO are limited to the cited parts in the office actions. Therefore, applicants may need to obtain cited literatures again to confirm the whole contents of the disclosure. Revision of the Patent Law in 2006 1. Revision to the amendment system After a notification of an office action, it is prohibited to amend a claim so as to replace the claimed invention with another invention having a technical feature which is different from that before the amendment. Such amendment is referred to as "shift amendment". When a shift amendment is made, a reason for rejection informing applicants of illegalness of the amendment will be raised. For example, in a case where one application including a plurality of inventions "A" and "B" which does not satisfy unity of invention is filed with the JPO, it is not permitted to delete a claim directing to the invention A after a reason for rejection concerning unity of invention is raised. For instance, when the invention of claim 1 is not novel or does not have a special technical feature because it is just a combination of known matters, it is judged by the Examiner that there is no common technical feature among claim 2 and subsequent claim(s). In that case, a reason for rejection concerning the lack of unity of invention will be issued without s to the examination. When such reason for rejection is raised, it would be impossible to overcome this rejection by amending claim 1 so as to add thereto a special technical feature according to a conventional practice, because making shift amendments are prohibited in the revision to the Patent Law. In this case, it would be possible to overcome by deleting claim 2 and subsequent claims and file a divisional application having the deleted claims, but the prosecution cost will become greater. Moreover, the Examination Guideline of the JPO such as the examination practice will be noticeably changed in accordance with the revision to the Patent Law. Therefore, we are required to prepare claims and specifications for patent applications in the best way based on correct understanding of the examination practice in order to maximize our client's interest. 2. Other points of the revision (1) Expansion of opportunities for filing divisional applications Applicants can file a divisional application(s) with the JPO within 30 days after the mailing date of a notice of allowance or a decision of rejection. (2) Restriction of amendment to divisional application For a divisional application which has a potential reason for rejection that has been raised during the examination of its parent application, a strict restriction of amendment to the divisional application is imposed in a manner as a case where a final office action is issued. That is, one of more of the following (i)-(iv) of amendment are only permitted: (i) cancellation of claim(s); (ii) making feature(s) of claim(s) narrower; (iii) correction of error(s); (iv) clarification of unclear description(s). (3) Extension of term for filing Japanese translation of foreign language application Applicants can submit a Japanese translation of a foreign language application within 14 months from the priority date. Patent Prosecution Highway 1. Purpose and Outline of the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPT) The purpose of the PPH is to facilitate an applicants' acquisition of a patent at an early stage worldwide and to enhance the utilization of search and examination results between the world's major IP Offices so as to reduce the burden of examination and to enhance the quality of examination worldwide. The PPH enables an application whose claims are determined to be patentable in the Office of First Filing (OFF) to undergo an accelerated examination in the Office of Second Filing (OSF) with a simple procedure according to a request from applicants. 2. Status of Patent Prosecution Highway The JPO started PPH pilot program in July 2006 between the USPTO. The JPO also started PPH between the KIPO in April 2007 and between the UK-IPO in July 2007. Trademark System for retail and wholesale services 1. Start of trademark system for retail and wholesale services The trademark system for retail services or wholesale services was introduced on April 1st, 2007, and a mark that is used for retail services or wholesale services can be registered as a service mark. Even if a retail distributor or wholesale service distributor develops goods for various fields, a trademark right can be obtained in one filed of "retail service". Therefore, costs of fling applications and maintaining the trademark rights can be reduced. This system provides protection of trademark rights for shopping carts, uniforms of sales assistants and the like. 2. Notes (1) A trademark right of the trademark system for retail and wholesale services does not cover an act to incuse or print a trademark on handling goods itself. Another trademark right for the goods should be obtained in order to cover such act. (2) Strengthening of confirmation of fact of using goods or intent to use goods With the introduction of the trademark system for retail and wholesale services, confirmation of fact of using goods or intent to use goods is strengthened. Specifically, a reason for rejection might be raised when general retail service is designated; when a plurality of services which are not analogous to each other are designated; and when, even in cases of trademarks for goods, goods belonging to eight or more analogous-group codes in one classification are designated. System of regionally based collective trademark In recent years, as one of trials to foster characteristic regions, making regional brands has been noticeably developed all over the country to differentiate specialty goods of a region from those of other regions. For the development of making regional brands, many trademarks consisting of a regional name and a goods' name (e.g. a specialty goods of the regional name) have been used. However, according to a conventional practice under the Trademark Law, such a trademark consisting of a regional name and a goods' name could not be registered except combining a drawing with the trademark or acquiring countrywide publicity, because it was thought not to possess a discriminating power as trademark and to be suitable for monopoly of a certain individual. If applicants can get a trademark right of a trademark consisting of a regional name and a goods' name at an earlier stage, that is helpful to foster the regional brands. In the circumstances, a legal change for the addition of the system of regionally based collective trademark passed the Congress of year 2005. The legal change was put in force on April 1, 2007 and the system of regionally based collective trademark started. 600 or more of applications utilizing this system have been so far filed with the JPO and has attracted a lot of attention. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments. Copyright (C) Amano and Partners. All Rights Reserved.