受験番号：28IPL004

Appellant provides detailed circumstances to argue that the original ruling is
not correct since the original ruling did not consider that the provisions of Article
184-4(3) and Article 184-5(2) of the Patent Act are in violation of the principle ofnational treatment.
However, as indicated in the original ruling, the procedures for filingtranslations of the specifications, etc. and those for filing national documents are simply
separate procedures based on different purposes.

Therefore, the argument ofAppellant on the premise of comparing these different procedures is fundamentallyincorrect. Although Appellant asserts in various ways that a substantial comparison
should be made based on the actual situations, since such an assertion is based on theincorrect premise of comparing subjects that cannot be compared, there is no room forsuch an assertion to be considered. (200)
Appellant argues that the original ruling is not correct in the construction andapplication of the "justifiable reason" provided in Article 184-4(4) of the Patent Act
because the original decision (i) does not take existing inequality between nationals andforeigners into consideration, (ii) is no different from determining lack of the "justifiablereason" only based on the fact of an email being sent by error, and (iii) is against a
demand for international harmonization under the PCT.
However, with regard to (i), Appellant handles originally different procedures
as if they could be handled in the same way, and asserts against the differences inprocedures between nationals and foreigners (inequality between nationals andforeigners). Such an argument of Appellant itself is unreasonable, and thus there are
no grounds in terms of (i) as asserted by Appellant. (180)問 2
Article 1.
This regulation sets forth the right and obligation of ABCDE Co. Ltd. (hereinafterreferred to as the "Company") and those employed by the Company including theofficers, permanent employees, non-permanent employees, and other staff members,
and those employed by other entities including temporary contracted workers anddispatched workers who are subject to instructions and orders of the Company(hereinafter referred to as the "Employees, etc."), with regard to inventions, devices,
technology, knowhow, and designs completed by the Employees, etc. within the scope ofbusiness of the Company (hereinafter referred to as the "Inventions, etc. Made by theEmployees, etc."), and with regard to the work prepared by the Employees, etc. in thecourse of past or present performance of duties in and/or for the Company (hereinafterreferred to as the "Work Created by the Employee, etc.")
Article 3.
1. If the manager of Intellectual Property Right Department determines that Inventions,etc. Made by the Employees, etc., which has been reported according to the precedingarticle, correspond to inventions completed in the course of past or present performanceof deities of the Employees, etc. in and/or for the Company (hereinafter referred to as
the "Employee Inventions, etc."), and if the Company determines that the Company
should obtain the Employee Inventions, etc., the Employees, etc. are notified in writing
to that effect.
2. Unless otherwise provided by law, upon notification by the written notice as provided
in the preceding provision, all the rights pertaining to the Employee Inventions, etc.
(including but not limited to, the right to obtain a patent) are regarded as originallybelonging to the Company.
3. For Inventions, etc. Made by the Employees, etc. for which the manager of theIntellectual Property Department determines as not corresponding to the Employee
Inventions, etc., if the manager considers it preferable for the Company to receive alicense for working of the Inventions, etc. Made by the Employees, etc., the Company
can offer a proposal of purchasing a license thereof from the Employees, etc. The
detailed conditions of the license are subject to provisions in a separate agreement to beexecuted between the Company and the Employees, etc.