1

Community Patent Review

Against the backdrop of an increasing number of patent applications and a prolongation of waiting
period for a first action, prompt and precise patent examination is nowadays desired in all countries of theworld along with the maintenance and improvement of the quality of patent examination. Against suchbackground, movements to consider Community Patent Review (CPR) have been making progress inrecent years with the aim of further improving the efficiency and quality of patent examination bypromoting public-private work-sharing in patent examination. CPR is a system where a community
consisting of ordinary people such as researchers and engineers conducts reviews including a submission ofprior art and a posting of comments as materials to be used for the patent examination through theInternet.
This study was conducted in order to investigate and analyze the effectiveness of CPR in Japan byimplementing CPR on a trial basis as well as to conduct surveys on CPR-related legal systems and theimplementation status of CPR in the United States.

Ⅰ Introduction
Against the backdrop of an increasing
number of patent applications, prompt and precise
patent examination, including shortening of the
waiting period for patent examination, along withthe maintenance and improvement of the qualityof patent examination, is nowadays desired in all
countries of the world, including Japan. On theother hand, technologies have become moresophisticated and complicated due to rapid
technological development, etc., and against the
backdrop of the progress of information andtelecommunications
technology
andtheglobalizationofinnovation,etc.,
usefulinformation about technologies has become
scattered around the world in various forms, suchas patent documents, papers, books, etc. Against
such background, countries, including Japan, areworking on various measures to grant rights
promptly while maintaining and improving thequality of patent examination. As one of suchmeasures, movements to consider Community
Patent Review (hereinafter referred to as “CPR”)
have been making progress in recent years with theaim of further improving the efficiency and qualityof patent examination by promoting public-private
work-sharing in patent examination.
In CPR, a community consisting of ordinary
people, including researchers, engineers, etc. atcompanies, universities, etc., conducts a review
of a patent application (presentation of prior art
and offering of comments, discussions, etc.) on
the Internet. Then, the community submits
documents, etc., which have been determined to

IIP Bulletin 2009be useful prior art as a result of the review, to thepatent office as materials to be used for
examination. CPR is a new mechanism in theintellectual property system. CPR is now being
implemented in the United States on a trial basis,
and it may be positioned as one of the global
infrastructures for maintaining and improving thequality of patent examination in the future.
Thus, this study was conducted in order toinvestigate and analyze the effectiveness of CPR
in Japan as well as to conduct surveys on
CPR-related
legal
systems
andtheimplementation status of CPR in the UnitedStates.

Ⅱ Current Conditions and Status ofConsideration in Japan Toward
Trial Implementation of CPR
1Current conditions in Japan toward trial
implementation of CPR(1) Increasing number of applications
waiting for examination and prolongationof waiting period for examination
The number of applications waiting for
examination (accumulated stock of applications to
be examined) is increasing year by year due tothe recent increase in the number of patentapplications, more complicated and sophisticatedcontent of patent applications and shortening of
the period for filing a request for examinationfrom seven to three years (lump of requests), etc.
For example, the number of applications waitingfor examination reached 888,000 in fiscal 2007. In
addition, the period for waiting examination is● 2 ●becoming longer along with the increase in thenumber of applications waiting for examination,and the average period was 27 months in fiscal
2007.
(2) Maintenance and improvement of thequality of patent examination
While efforts are being made to increase thespeed and efficiency of patent examination,
maintenance and improvement of the quality ofpatent examination is also desired. Behind this is
the fact that there are increasing patent
infringement lawsuits in which a defense ofinvalidation of a patent is made and the court
determines that the patent is to be invalidated
and the fact that the rate of requests for a trial forinvalidation accepted by the JPO and the rate ofcases of seeking rescission of the JPO decision to
the effect that the patent is to be invalidated inwhich the court rescinds the JPO decision are
high. These facts show a difference in thedetermination of the validity of rights between
the Examination Departments and the Appeals
Department within the JPO and between the JPO
and the court, and do not necessarily serve as adirect measure for the quality of patentexamination.
However,maintenanceandimprovement of the quality of patent examination
is desired from the perspective of realizing
consistently stable granting of rights throughout
examination, trial and court procedures.
(3) Submission of Information by Third
Party
Active utilization of the knowledge of people
outside the JPO through the Submission ofInformation by Third Party (Articles 13-2 and13-3 of the Regulation of the Patent Act) and soon is anticipated for the purpose of achieving agood balance between the speeding up of patentexamination
andthemaintenanceandimprovement of quality of patents. Regarding thecurrent status of use of the Submission ofInformation by Third Party, the number of cases
using the system has increased year by year due
to abolition of the patent opposition system, etc.,
and it reached over 7,000 in fiscal 2007. In
addition, 76% of the information provided wasused in notices of reasons for refusal (result of asurvey on applications examined in January2007).
(4) Non-patent documents
At present, technical information that
contributes to patent examination exists not onlyin the form of patent documents but also in theform of papers, magazines, etc. (hereinafterreferred to as “non-patent documents”). Owing to
the development of the Internet and informationand telecommunications technology, technicalinformation exists in various forms. In suchcircumstances, the number of cases in which
non-patent documents are used in patentexamination is on the increase. On the other hand,
non-patent documents exist in a wide variety offorms, including papers, magazines, books andarticles on the Internet, and are more difficult toaccess than patent documents.
2

Status of consideration of CPR

Under the current conditions surrounding
the patent system, including increasing
accumulated stock of applications to be examinedand prolongation of the waiting period for
examination, as mentioned above, in Japan, theIntellectual Property Strategy Headquarters andthe study groups of the JPO, etc. are also
advocating the importance of CPR and holding
discussions toward introducing CPR in light of its
implementation on a trial basis in the UnitedStates.

Ⅲ Laws and Regulations/Systems
Relating to CPR
It is necessary to take relevant laws andregulations/systems into account in implementing
CPR. As the existing CPR-related laws andregulations/systems in Japan, there is the
Submission of Information by Third Party
whereby a third party can submit prior art
documents, etc. to the JPO. In addition, in CPR,
the members of the general public present prior
art information, including technical documents,on the Internet, and the handling of prior art
information becomes a problem in relation to the
Copyright Act, depending on the nature of theprior art information. On the other hand, as
CPR-related laws and regulations/systems in the
United States, there are third party submissions
in published application, protest, duty of
disclosure and copyright law.

Ⅳ Outline of CPR (Peer to Patent)in the United States
Peer-to-Patent is operated by the Center for
Patent Innovations of the New York Law School.
On the other hand, the United States Patent and● 3 ●IIP Bulletin 2009

Trademark Office (hereinafter referred to as“USPTO”) adopts the Peer-to-Patent project as
one of the strategic initiatives that are
implemented to improve and rationalize thereview process of patent applications, and istaking a stance of providing cooperation for said
project. For example, the USPTO cites
cooperation for said project in the next Strategic
Plan. In addition, many companies, etc. areparticipating in said project as sponsors.
Peer-to-Patent provides a web-based systemthat connects technical specialists and the
USPTO examiners/patent examination process,with the use of network technology. Specifically, it
provides a place for open communities, in which
participants from the public (hereinafter referred
to as “reviewers”) conduct reviews of patentapplications, by opening a portal site(http://www.peertopatent.org/) on the Internet.
Then, the following are mainly conductedthorough the site.

will take longer to assess, the early indications
are certainly promising.”

Ⅴ Trial Implementation of CPR inJapan1(1) Outline of the trial implementation ofCPR
In implementing CPR on a trial basis in Japan,
the method of the trial implementation wasdetermined in light of the method of the trial
implementation of CPR in the United States,
which is the precedent mentioned in the previous
chapter, and discussions at the committee. The
figure below shows the outline of CPR, which was
implemented on a trial basis in Japan.

・ Placement of a list and content of patentapplications subject to review on the Web
・ Uploading of prior art and placement of theoutline thereof on the Web
・ Discussion about patent applications among
reviewers
・ Evaluation of prior art
・ Submission of influential prior art to the
USPTO
Peer-to-Patent is currently in the second
year of trial implementation, and the final results
thereof have yet to be obtained. However, theCenter for Patent Innovations, which is theimplementing agency of the project, stated asfollows with regard to the results of the first yearof the trial implementation: “Data from the firstyear of the Peer-to-Patent pilot shows that anopen network of reviewers can improve thequality of information available to patentexaminers and that such citizen-reviewers arecapable of producing information relevant to thepatent examination process and are willing tovolunteer time. Initial results based on a surveyof patent examiners from the USPTO suggestthat information provided by the public isbeneficial to the examination process.” In addition,
Professor Noveck, the project leader ofPeer-to-Patent, said: “As the first example ofharnessing public knowledge to improve agovernment process, the first year of
Peer-to-Patent was an unquestioned success” and“While the impact of this project on patent quality

IIP Bulletin 2009

Method of trial implementation● 4 ●(3) Submission of prior art
and posting of commentsby reviewers participatingin CPR
Applicant

JPO(2) Placement of theapplication subject toreview on the site(4) Forwarding prior art to
JPO(1) Applicant’s participationin CPR (provision of an
application subject to review)(5) Examination of the applicationin consideration of prior art which
was provided by reviewer

Implementing agency:
Institute of Intellectual
Property
・System administration
・Provision of information, etc.

Figure 1 Outline of the trial implementation of CPR(2) Period of the trial implementation
CPR was implemented on a trial basis from
July 16, 2008 to December 8, 2008. The acceptanceof applications for participation as reviewers started
on June 20, 2008 prior to the trial implementation of
CPR.
(3) CPR site
In order to implement the aforementioned CPR
on a trial basis, a portal site was opened on theInternet.
(4) Reviewers
Those who wish to conduct a review,
including submission of prior art and offering ofcomments, with regard to an application subject toreview, which is placed on the CPR site,
participate in CPR as reviewers on a voluntarybasis.
(5) Applications subject to review
Applicants who wish to put their patentapplications into review by the public offer thepatent applications.
Applications subject to review were patentapplications that belong to technical fields in theinformation technology (computer, software,
network, etc.), taking into account the status oftrial implementation in the United States and theproperty of the technical fields, etc. In addition, in
consideration of the purpose of CPR, applications
for which a request for examination has alreadybeen filed, those which have already been laid
open, those for which a request for accelerated
examination has not been filed and those forwhich examination has not been started weremade subject to review.
(6) Method of review
The next topic is the method whereby
reviewers who applied for participation conduct
review of applications subject to review on the
CPR site. Incidentally, the term “review” in thistrial implementation of CPR means evaluation as
to the novelty (Article 29(1) of the Patent Act)and inventive step (Article 29(2) of the Patent
Act) of applications subject to review. Specifically,that means submission of prior art that can serveas grounds for rejecting the novelty and inventive
step of patent applications and posting ofcomments thereon, as well as the understandingof the content of patent applications.

● 5 ●IIP Bulletin 2009

(i)Placement of applications subject to review
on the CPR site
Applications subject to review, which were
provided by applicants, are placed on the CPR siteon the starting date of review set with respect toeach application, in order to put the applications
into review by reviewers. In addition to thecontent of each application (bibliographic items
and the scope of claims), electronic data of
publication of each patent application is placed on
the CPR site. Moreover, the status of review ofapplications by reviewers (number of reviewers
who have conducted review, the content andnumber of prior art submitted and comments
posted) is also placed on the CPR site together
with patent applications.
With regard to the inspection of the content
of patent applications subject to review and thestatus of review on the CPR site, it was madepossible to choose between limiting theinspection to reviewers who applied forparticipation and making available for public
inspection (hereinafter referred to as “publication
to the public”), with respect to each application
subject to review, according to the intention ofeach applicant. That is, patent applications subject
to review for which the applicant desires theformer choice are placed only on a webpage towhich access is restricted by IDs and passwords
that have been given to reviewers who applied forparticipation. In the case of the latter choice,patent applications are placed on a webpage towhich access is not restricted.
(ii) Period of review
The period for which patent applications are
put into review by reviewers was set to be threemonths for each application, taking into accountthe method of trial implementation in the UnitedStates and the period of analysis of the results ofthis trial implementation of CPR.
(iii) Submission of prior art
Reviewers can submit relevant prior art
based on the understanding of the content ofpatent applications. Reviewers submit prior art bysending an e-mail stating the bibliographic items(title, information source such as a link,statements concerning relevance, etc.) of prior art,
which they intend to submit, to the e-mail address
set with respect to each application. Then, thebibliographic items of prior art that have been
submitted by reviewers via e-mail are placed on
the CPR site together with the submitters (usernames).

IIP Bulletin 2009(iv) Posting of comments
Reviewers
can post commentsonapplications subject to review and comments onprior art that has been submitted by otherreviewers. A reviewer who intends to offer acomment does so by inputting the comment on a
webpage set up for each application. Commentsthat have been posted by reviewers are placed on
the CPR site in real time together with thesubmitters (user names).
(7) Submission of Prior Art to the JPO
For prior art that has been submitted by areviewer, its content, eligibility, etc. are consideredby the implementing agency in consideration ofcomments posted. Then, prior art that has been
considered to be contributory to examination by a
JPO examiner is forwarded to the JPO, under theSubmission of Information by Third Party (Article
13-2 of the Regulation of the Patent Act).
(8) Examination by a JPO examiner
An patent application for which prior art thathas been submitted by a reviewer has been
forwarded to the JPO based on the Submission ofInformation by Third Party is examined by a JPO
examiner in the same manner as ordinary patentexamination.
(9) Questionnaire survey
In order to hear needs and opinions
concerning CPR and obtain analytical materials,
such as the effectiveness of CPR, a questionnaire
survey was conducted targeting reviewers andapplicants who participated in CPR, andexaminers who took charge of examination ofpatent applications subject to review after thecompletion of the review of applications in CPR.

Ⅵ Results of the Trial Implementationof CPR and Analysis Thereof
1Outline of the results of the trial
implementation

The following table shows the outline of theresults of the trial implementation of CPR in
Japan. In addition, it is difficult to accurately
compare the results of the trial implementation of
CPR in Japan and the United States since thescheme of the trial implementation of CPR differ
between Japan and the United States. However,
the results of the first year of the trial
implementation in the United States are also
shown in the table.
● 6 ●Table 1 Results of the trial implementation in the United States and Japan
United States
Access to the site
# of persons who visited the site
Participants
Total # of reviewers
Total # of applicantsMore than 40,000

11,9502,092
13 companies (including
three individuals)
40

253

Total # of applications subject to review
Results of review# of reviewers who actually conducted review
365 (about 17%)
among all reviewers (percentage)
Total # of prior art submitted
173
Total # of non-patent documents among prior art
96 (about 55%)
submitted (percentage)
Total # of comments that were posted
395
Submission of prior art to the patent office# of applications subject to review for which prior
36
art was forwarded to the patent officeTotal # of prior art forwarded to the patent office168(hereinafter referred to as “forwarded documents”)
Results of examination by the examiners of the patent officeTotal # of applications subject to review for which a36
first action was issued
Total # of applications subject to review for which a
notice of reasons for refusal(*2) citing forwarded 13
documents was issued
Total # of forwarded documents that were cited in
14
notices of reasons for refusal
Total # of applications subject to review for which a
notice of reasons for refusal citing forwarded 8
non-patent documents was issued

2

Analysis of the results of the trial
implementation

In the trial implementation of this time, thenumber of participating reviewers, the number ofapplicants and the number of applications subject
to review exceeded the numbers envisioned at
the threshold of the trial implementation. Thus, it
is possible to say that the trial implementation
obtained certain results from a quantitativeJapan

16 companies(*1)
39
22 (about 9%)137
17 (about 12%)
11
37
120

35
13
19
0

standpoint. In addition, it is also possible to saythat CPR brought about certain effect in terms ofcontribution to examination since prior art
submitted through CPR was cited in 13 firstactions (notices of reasons for refusal) out of 39
applications subject to review.
However, various problems also became
apparent through the trial implementation of thistime. The next figure shows those problems andthe outline of the direction of problem-solving.

(*1) Including one affiliate company and one company that is a joint applicant.
(*2) For the United States, Office Action. The same applies hereinafter.
● 7 ●IIP Bulletin 2009

<Problems><Direction of problem-solving>・Awards, monetary rewards, etc. to reviewers← More careful consideration is required.
・Appeal of reviewers to society and formation of communities→ Publication of profiles○ Participants(i) Reviewers
・Absolute number ofreviewers
・Continuous new entries

・Incentives to companies, etc.
← Consideration paying attention to the risks taken by companies,
etc. is required.

(ii) Applicants and applications
subject to review
・Ensuring of incentives forparticipation

・Publication of the content of applications to the public← Consideration paying attention to the risks taken by applicants isrequired.
・CPR that functions effectively
・Utilization of the refund system for fees for a request for examination→ Withdrawal after review
・Utilization as an element for determining the necessity of filing a request for
examination→ Review of applications for which a request for examination has yet to be
filed

・Subject technical fields

・Expansion of subject technical fields← Balance with resources for operation and the number of reviewers○ Results of the review(i) Reviewers
・Number of active reviewers(ii) Prior art

・Extension of the period of review← Relationship with the timing of examination is taken into
consideration.
・Direct request for participation to experts→ System of invitation by participating reviewers

・Number of submitted
non-patent documents
・Participation of researchers and engineers(iii) Comments
・Number of comments posted
・Sluggish discussion

・Formation of communities→ Publication of profiles and participation with respect to eachapplication
・Mechanism whereby reviewers evaluate prior art(iv) Results of examination by
JPO examiners
・Utilization of non-patentdocuments

・Promotion of presentation of non-patent documents

・Ensuring of eligibility of non-patent documents(v) Others
・Quality of Submission ofInformation by Third Party

・Organization of the site

・Enrichment of the content stated in documents for information provision← Consideration is required so as to prevent departure from the purpose of
CPR.
・Means of submission different from those under the existing Submission ofInformation by Third Party.

・Organization that is more user-friendly→ For example, submission of prior art with the use of a form forposting

Figure 2: Problems and the direction of problem-solving
IIP Bulletin 2009

● 8 ●

Ⅶ Conclusion
253 reviewers participated in the CPR thatwas implemented on a trial basis in Japan, for 39
applications subject to review, which were
provided by 16 applicants (companies). The
reviewers
conducted
review,
including
submission of prior art and posting of comments.
As specific results of the review, 137 prior arts
were submitted for 38 applications subject toreview, and of which, 120 prior arts were
forwarded to the JPO with the use of theSubmission of Information by Third Party. In
terms of the results of examination by JPO
examiners in consideration of prior art submitted
by reviewers, 19 prior arts submitted through
CPR were cited in notices of reasons for refusal
for 13 applications subject to review.
In addition, according to the results of aquestionnaire survey targeting applicants and JPO
examiners who participated in the trial
implementation of this time, many of them could
obtain useful information, including prior art, etc.
that is highly relevant to their applications,through CPR. Moreover, many of them expressed
positive opinions in response to the question ofwhether they think CPR is effective inmaintaining and improving the quality of patentexamination. Therefore, taking into account theevaluation of CPR by applicants or JPO examiners
as well as the fact that some prior art submitted
through CPR was used in examination by JPO
examiners, it is possible to say that certain effectwas obtained through CPR that was implemented
this time on a trial basis, and thus, theeffectiveness of CPR could be inferred. On theother hand, various problems in CPR became
clear through the trial implementation of thistime. The following two problems are cited as
especially major.
The first problem is the number ofparticipating reviewers. Although 253 reviewers
participated in the trial implementation of thistime, only 22 reviewers actually conducted review,
including submission of prior art or posting ofcomments. The number of such reviewers was
not sufficient in any sense. CPR is premised onvoluntary review, including submission of priorart and posting of comments, by reviewers.
Participation of a considerable number ofreviewers and active review by reviewers arenecessary for more appropriate and sufficient
review. Therefore, it seems to be necessary to
make improvements for promoting review as well
as for increasing the number of participating

reviewers.
In order to have more people participate in
CPR as reviewers, various improvements are
possible, including incentives to reviewers orapplicants, more active and extensive outreachactivities and publication of applications subject toreview to the public. In addition, formation ofdeeper communities is cited as one of theexamples of a mechanism for activating review, in
addition to the aforementioned measures topromote participation of reviewers. In the trial
implementation of this time, only 11 comments
were offered by reviewers. This means that
hardly any discussion was held among reviewers,
and one of the possible causes thereof is failure toform communities among reviewers. Therefore,
one idea is to form communities visually bymaking it possible to participate in CPR withrespect to each application subject to review andgrouping reviewers who wish to conduct reviewof the application subject to review (community),in order to create an environment that facilitates
discussion among reviewers. In doing so,
publication of profiles of reviewers provides
material for knowing each other, and isconsidered to be contributory to the formation ofcommunities.
Then,
the
formationofcommunities serves as an incentive to reviewers
and leads people to participate in CPR. On theother hand, taking into account the individual andspecific content of applications subject to review,
participation of experts who are familiar with thetechnical content of applications subject to review
as well as key persons is also necessary toactivate review. For this purpose, it will probably
be necessary to make improvements, including
specifying experts, etc., inviting them toparticipate in CPR as reviewers, and publishing
applications subject to review to the public.
The second problem is the number of
non-patentdocuments.
In
the
trial
implementation of this time, most of the 137 priorarts that were submitted by reviewers were
patent documents, and only 17 were non-patentdocuments. If the basic concept of CPR is aimed
at the discovery of prior arts related toapplications, all kinds of documents are includedin the prior art. Therefore, difference in thenumber of prior arts by the kind of prior art is not
a very large problem. In addition, even for patentdocuments, if they are submitted through CPR
and are utilized in examination at the JPO, theeffect of CPR can be affirmed to a certain extent.

● 9 ●IIP Bulletin 2009

However, in the questionnaire survey targeting
applicants, many answered that they expected thepresentation of non-patent documents, including
academic documents, magazines and books, in
CPR. Moreover, JPO examiners mainly conduct
search of patent documents in the ordinary
examination scheme, and if they have sufficientknowledge of patent documents, submission ofpatent documents through CPR seems not to leadto the improvement of the quality of examination
though it increases the efficiency of examination.
Then, in the current situation in which it is moredifficult to access non-patent documents,
submission of non-patent documents by publicknowledge is desired, and it will further increase
the effectiveness of CPR.
In order to increase the number of
non-patent documents presented, more active
participation of researchers and engineers is
considered to be necessary. In addition, from thefact that many applicants who expect thesubmission of non-patent documents express
desire for the participation of researchers andengineers, it is presumable that the participationof researchers and engineers will lead to anincrease in the number of non-patent documents.
Though there was a difference in the attribute ofparticipating reviewers between the UnitedStates and Japan, whether or not applications
subject to review are published to the public iscited as one of the reasons for the difference.
That is, in the case where applications subject toreview are not published to the public, people
cannot see the specific content of applications andthe actual status of review unless they participate
as a reviewer. Even in such an environment,
some IP experts will be interested in CPR as a
new mechanism relating to intellectual property,
which is their area of expertise, and participate in
CPR, even without seeing the specific content ofapplications. However, as researchers andengineers do not have any information andknowledge on the patent system itself as well as
on CPR on a daily basis, they seem to be hardly
likely to have an interest in CPR in the situation
where they cannot understand the substance of
CPR.
Therefore,
inorder
to solvetheaforementioned problem of the number ofparticipants as reviewers, it is particularly
necessary to make improvements to promote theparticipation of researchers and engineers. For
this purpose, the aforementioned various

IIP Bulletin 2009

improvements to promote participation asreviewers should be considered, and in particular,
it is necessary to publish applications subject toreview to the public in order to promote theparticipation of researchers and engineers.
Through the trial implementation of this time,
CPR in Japan exerted certain effect, and a certain
degree of the effectiveness of CPR was
confirmed; but it is also true that various
problems in CPR were highlighted. However, theresults of the trial implementation of this time do
not provide any grounds by which CPR in Japan
can be directly denied, and it is possible to saythat the trial implementation had significance inthe point that various problems were understood
through the trial implementation.
On the other hand, in the United States, CPR
is implemented on a trial basis ahead of othercountries in the world, and a certain degree of its
effectiveness has already been confirmed.
However, the positioning and advantages of CPR
originally differ between the United States where
the system of the submission of prior art by third
parties does not substantially exist and Japan
where the Submission of Information by Third
Party has been established. Thus, it is impossible
to say that successful examples in the UnitedStates are immediately applicable to Japan.
However, today when patents are occasionallyinvalidated after their issue while emphasis isplaced on patents as intellectual property rights,
CPR is sufficiently likely to play an important rolein assuring the value or quality of patents. Many
reviewers and applicants anticipate the role ofCPR. In addition, taking into account theenvironment surrounding the patent system inwhich a recent increase in the number ofapplications waiting for examination and theprolongation of the waiting period for examination
are major problems, it is desired that CPR
effectively functions as one of the means ofmaintaining and improving the quality of
examination while increasing the efficiency of
examination.
Although CPR is now still at the stage of trial
implementation in the United States, it issufficiently likely to make the transition to
full-scale operation in the future as it has shown acertain degree of results through continuous trial
implementation. In addition, following theprecedent in the United States, discussions
toward introduction of CPR are ongoing not onlyin Japan but also in the United Kingdom, andthere is the possibility that CPR will extend overall countries of the world and become one of the● 10 ●

global patent examination systems in the future.
In preparation for such a case, it is necessary toconsider and establish the usefulness of CPR inorder to enable Japanese companies, etc. toutilize CPR effectively as one of their intellectual
property
strategies.
Moreover,furtherconsideration of CPR with a view toharmonization with all countries of the world isalso desired in order to have CPR positioned as a
global infrastructure.
CPR is one type of unprecedented new
public-private work-sharing, which brings theknowledge of the private sector into patentadministration. Therefore, a certain amount oftime may be required, including the time forgoing through various trials and errors, before
CPR functions as a genuinely effective system.
However, it is expected that efforts will be madeto improve the problems that became clear
through the trial implementation of this time andthat further discussions will be held to assure theeffectiveness of CPR.
(Researcher : Takashi ISHIHARA)● 11 ●IIP Bulletin 2009