★★★ ＜第27回知的財産翻訳検定試験【第13回英文和訳】＞ ★★★
≪１級課題 -知財法務実務-≫【解答にあたっての注意】
１．問題の指示により和訳してください。
２．解答語数に特に制限はありません。適切な箇所で改行してください。
３．課題文に段落番号がある場合、これを訳文に記載してください。
４．課題は２題あります。それぞれの課題の指示に従い、２題すべて解答してください。

問１．米国連邦最高裁判所のある判決文の一部を下記に示しています。これの下線部を付した部分を、日本語に翻訳してください。
翻訳上の注記：1．文中に引用されている他の判決名、文献名は、訳出するには及びません。翻訳文にも原文表記のままで記載してください。
（例：Stern v. Marshall, 564 U. S.
462, 484 (2011)）
2．ラテン語の略号（例：Id.）は、日本語に翻訳して（略号の意味するところを）記載してください。
IIIArticle III vests the judicial power of the United States “in one supreme
Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain
and establish.” §1. Consequently, Congress cannot “confer the Government’s‘judicial Power’ on entities outside Article III.” Stern v. Marshall, 564 U. S. 462,
484 (2011). When determining whether a proceeding involves an exercise ofArticle III judicial power, this Court’s precedents have distinguished between“public rights” and “private rights.” Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, 573
U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks omitted). Those
precedents have given Congress significant latitude to assign adjudication ofpublic rights to entities other than Article III courts. See ibid.; Stern, supra, at488-492.
This Court has not “definitively explained” the distinction between publicand private rights, Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458

U. S. 50, 69 (1982), and its precedents applying the public-rights doctrine have“not been entirely consistent,” Stern, 564 U. S., at 488. But this case does notrequire us to add to the “various formulations” of the public-rights doctrine. Ibid.
Our precedents have recognized that the doctrine covers matters “which arisebetween the Government and persons subject to its authority in connection withthe performance of the constitutional functions of the executive or legislativedepartments.” Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 50 (1932). In other words, thepublic-rights doctrine applies to matters “‘arising between the government andothers, which from their nature do not require judicial determination and yet aresusceptible of it.’” Ibid. (quoting Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U. S. 438, 451(1929)). Inter partes review involves one such matter: reconsideration of theGovernment’s decision to grant a public franchise.
AInter partes review falls squarely within the public rights doctrine. This
Court has recognized, and the parties do not dispute, that the decision to grant apatent is a matter involving public rights-specifically, the grant of a publicfranchise. Inter partes review is simply a reconsideration of that grant, andCongress has permissibly reserved the PTO’s authority to conduct thatreconsideration. Thus, the PTO can do so without violating Article III.
1This Court has long recognized that the grant of a patent is a “‘matte[r]involving public rights.’” United States v. Duell, 172 U. S. 576, 582-583 (1899)(quoting Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272,284 (1856)). It has the key features to fall within this Court’s longstanding
formulation of the public-rights doctrine.
Ab initio, the grant of a patent involves a matter “arising between thegovernment and others.” Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, at 451. As this Court
has long recognized, the grant of a patent is a matter between “‘the public, who
are the grantors, and ... the patentee.’” Duell, supra, at 586 (quoting Butterworthv. United States ex rel. Hoe, 112 U. S. 50, 59 (1884)). By “issuing patents,” thePTO “take[s] from the public rights of immense value, and bestow[s] them upon
the patentee.” United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S. 315, 370(1888). Specifically, patents are “public franchises” that the Government grants

“to the inventors of new and useful improvements.” Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall.
516, 533 (1871); accord, Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U. S. 55, 63-64(1998). The franchise gives the patent owner “the right to exclude others frommaking, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the UnitedStates.” 35 U. S. C. §154(a)(1). That right “did not exist at common law.” Gayler v.
Wilder, 10 How. 477, 494 (1851). Rather, it is a “creature of statute law.” Crown
Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Machine Works, 261 U. S. 24, 40 (1923).
Additionally, granting patents is one of “the constitutional functions” thatcan be carried out by “the executive or legislative departments” without “‘judicialdetermination.’” Crowell, supra, at 50-51 (quoting Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra,at 452). Article I gives Congress the power “[t]o promote the Progress of Scienceand useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors theexclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” §8, cl. 8. Congress
can grant patents itself by statute. See, e.g., Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How.
539, 548-550 (1853). And, from the founding to today, Congress has authorized
the Executive Branch to grant patents that meet the statutory requirements forpatentability. See 35 U. S. C. §§2(a)(1), 151; see also Act of July 8, 1870, §31,
16 Stat. 202; Act of July 4, 1836, §7, 5 Stat. 119-120; Act of Apr. 10, 1790, ch. 7,§1, 1 Stat. 109-110. When the PTO “adjudicate[s] the patentability of inventions,”
it is “exercising the executive power.” Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U. S. 868,910 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (emphasisdeleted).
Accordingly, the determination to grant a patent is a “matte[r] involving
public rights.” Murray’s Lessee, supra, at 284. It need not be adjudicated inArticle III court.
2Inter partes review involves the same basic matter as the grant of apatent. So it, too, falls on the public-rights side of the line.
Inter partes review is “a second look at an earlier administrative grant ofa patent.” Cuozzo, 579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 16). The Board considers thesame statutory requirements that the PTO considered when granting the patent.
See 35 U. S. C. §311(b). Those statutory requirements prevent the “issuance ofpatents whose effects are to remove existent knowledge from the public domain.”Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U. S. 1, 6 (1966). So, like thePTO’s initial review, the Board’s inter partes review protects “the public’sparamount interest in seeing that patent monopolies are kept within theirlegitimate scope,” Cuozzo, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 16) (internal quotation
marks and alterations omitted). Thus, inter partes review involves the sameinterests as the determination to grant a patent in the first instance. See Duell,supra, at 586.
The primary distinction between inter partes review and the initial grantof a patent is that inter partes review occurs after the patent has issued. But that
distinction does not make a difference here. Patent claims are granted subject tothe qualification that the PTO has “the authority to reexamine - and perhaps
cancel - a patent claim” in an inter partes review. See Cuozzo, supra, at ___ (slipop., at 3). Patents thus remain “subject to [theBoard’s] authority” to cancel
outside of an Article III court. Crowell, 285 U. S., at 50.
This Court has recognized that franchises can be qualified in thismanner. For example, Congress can grant a franchise that permits a company toerect a toll bridge, but qualify the grant by reserving its authority to revoke oramend the franchise. See, e.g., Louisville Bridge Co. v. United States, 242 U. S.
409, 421 (1917) (collecting cases). Even after the bridge is built, the Government
can exercise its reserved authority through legislation or an administrativeproceeding. See, e.g., id., at 420 - 421; Hannibal Bridge Co. v. United States,
221 U. S. 194, 205 (1911); Bridge Co. v. United States, 105 U. S. 470, 478 - 482(1882). The same is true for franchises that permit companies to build railroads
or telegraph lines. See, e.g., United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., 160 U. S. 1,24 - 25, 37 - 38 (1895).
Thus, the public-rights doctrine covers the matter resolved in inter partes
review. The Constitution does not prohibit the Board from resolving it outside of
an Article III court.

問 2．以下の問題文は、複数の社が知財を持ち寄って共同事業（joint venture）を営むことを目的とする共同事業契約（架空）の抜粋です。文中の下線部分全部を日本語に翻訳してください。翻訳に際しては、次の各注意事項を遵守してください。注意事項を遵守していない答案については、減点対象となる場合もあります。
翻訳文上の注記
１： 契約書中において特別に定義されている用語（先頭大文字の用語です。以下「定義語」といいます。
）については、翻訳文でも定義語であることが一目瞭然となるように（定義語でない語と紛らわしくないように）訳語を工夫してください。
２： 契約に登場する当事者の名称は、カタカナ表記又は英数字とカタカナとの組み合わせの表記のいずれでも構いませんが、原文のとおり英数字表記のままとすることは不可とします。
３： 翻訳文だけを読んでも内容を正確に且つ容易に理解できるよう、契約書として自然な日本語訳を心がけてください。必要であれば、内容の正確性が担保される限りにおいて、一文を区切って二文で表現するなど、工夫を凝らしていただいて構いません。

This joint venture agreement (this “Agreement”) is dated November 1, 2018 andentered into by and between: Map Data Corporation (“Map Data”); 3D Design
Technology Limited (“3D Tech”); Car Navigation System Inc. (“Car Navigation”);
and IT Software Distribution K.K. (“IT Software”), in connection with the joint
businessventure(the“JointVenture”)

forthedevelopmentofthe

three-dimensional navigation smartphone application (the “App”) as well as forthe distribution of the App through the smartphone app distribution network. In
consideration of the mutual premises and covenants herein, the parties hereto
hereby agree as follows:
問題文ここから→1.

For the formation of and success in the Joint Venture, the parties hereto
hereby agree to make the following contributions to the Joint Venture:(a)

Map Data shall provide the map data for which it owns and controls
100% of the copyright and other licensing right as required by the JointVenture (the “Map”), and grant each member of the Joint Venture allnon-exclusive licenses of such Map necessary for the exploitation

through the Joint Venture, which shall include without limitation thosefor reproducing, adapting and transmitting online through the App;(b)3D Tech shall develop the App incorporating the Map as required
under the specification agreed herein, fully exploiting and embodying
its three-dimensional modeling technology patented under Japanese
Patent No. XXXXXXX, and grant each member of the Joint Venture
the exclusive licenses of such patented technology for the exploitationin the form of App; and(c)Car Navigation shall develop the original naming and service logo of
the App indirectly exploiting the goodwill of Car Navigation (the “AppMark”) (which shall include the clearance of any and all conflicting
tradename, trademark and service mark for all categories of the App
exploitation and the registration of such App Mark before all relevant
trademark authorities) and exclusively license the App Mark for theuse by the Joint Venture, and market and distribute the App through all
available smartphone app distribution platforms under such App Mark.

2.

The parties hereto expressly acknowledge and agree that the Joint Venture
shall be in the form of a partnership having no independent legal capacity,
for which IT Software shall serve as the representative of the Joint Venture
where necessary for executing any contract, controlling the mutual asset(including any and all technical secret and knowhow and other intellectual
properties originally and uniquely arising in the course of the Joint Venture)and otherwise protecting the mutual interest on behalf of the Joint Venture.

3.

Any and all profit and loss and other results arising through the JointVenture shall be distributed to, and borne by, each member to the Joint
Venture on a basis of pro rata to the share of such member in the Joint
Venture, such share being: 20% for Map Data, 40% for 3D Tech, 30% for
Car Navigation, and 10% for IT Software for the purpose hereof.

←問題文ここまで