Government is making a new rule in antitrust law to regulate IT major companies, which are so called “Platformers”.
It seems whether or not monopolization of data inhibits competition will be one of the criteria for examining M&A by Fair Trade Commission and the number of intellectual properties and researchers relating to date and AI will be evaluated as a factor influencing the competition.
Japanese Patent Office (JPO) tries to make new framework to support universities to obtain patents.
JPO will establish “a supporting team for fundamental research” for providing useful information such as technology trends and registered patents in internationally spotlighted fields so as to encourage universities to get patents.Source Nikkei website (Japanese)
[Title of the case] “Accessory case shaped camera” (the article of the design)
[Key issue] “The difficulty in creating a design” of Article 3 (2) of the Design Act.
Court stated that the present design, whose article was an “accessory case shaped camera”, could have been easily created by combining the primary cited design relating to a “ring case with a camera” with the secondary cited design relating to a “hidden camera.”Source IPHC website
[Key issue] “A trademark consists solely of a mark indicating, in a common manner, the common name of the goods or services” of Article 3(1)(i) of Trademark Act.
Court rescinded a JPO’s invalidation-trial decision, stating that in the light of the usage of “PPF” on websites, etc. for goods “films in general for protection of the body surface of automobile” (the goods ), it was acknowledged that traders and consumers had recognized “PPF” as a general abbreviation of the goods.
[Title of the patent] “Constructional board”
[Key issue] Inventive step (Article 29 (2) of the Patent Act)
Court rescinded a JPO’s invalidation-trial decision, stating that a difference between a patent invention and a primarily cited invention should be found as a collective structure as a unit from a viewpoint of solving the technical problem of the patent invention.Source IPHC website
[Title of the invention] “Pharmaceutical”
[Key issue] “Right of prior use” of Article 79 of the Patent Act.
In an injunction case requested on the basis of a pharmaceutical patent, Court did not affirm a right of prior use for Appellant stating that the technical idea embodied in a sample drug of the Appellant’s product could not be an invention having the same content as the patent invention.Source IPHC website
[Title of the case] “Retweet” (Copyright)
[Key issue] “Infringement of moral right of author” of Articles 19(1) and 20 of the Copyright Act.
Court stated that, concerning the so-called “Retweet,” there was no infringement of copyrights (reproduction right, right to transmit to the public, right of communication to the public), but that there was infringement of moral right of the author (right to determine the indication of an author’s name, right to maintain integrity).
Source IPHC website