6 Modalities of Future Utility Model System
For the purpose of actively protecting and encouraging small inventions based on industrial policy, theutility model system was established as a system complementary to the patent system.
However, through several system reforms such as the introduction of the revised multiple claims system andgranting rights on formality examination only, the number of utility model applications has been decreasing
whereas the number of patent applications has been increasing rapidly in recent years.
With prompt protection of intellectual property rights being desired and usage of intellectual propertysystems being diversified, it has been pointed out as necessary to discuss modalities of the utility model system
which will satisfy users’ needs.
In light of this situation, the study was conducted as a basic survey for contributing the discussion,
focusing on issues such as the scope of subject matter to be protected, duration, amendment/correction, and therelationship with the patent system, while targeting utility model systems in Germany, France, the EU, theRepublic of Korea, and China. A questionnaire survey was also conducted targeting Japanese users, with theaim of understanding their use of the utility model system, awareness of problems, and opinions on the futuresystem designing.

Ⅰ

Utility Model System in Japan

In the Meiji era (until 1911), since mostinventions made by Japanese applicants were
improvements of basic technologies that had been
introduced from foreign countries, the majority ofimportant patents were owned by foreigners, andsince the then Japanese Patent Law could notprotect such small inventions, the Japanese Utility
Model Law was enacted in 1905, by referring to theGerman law as the mother law.
Upon the full revision of the law in 1959, adevice was defined as “creation of technical idea by
which a law of nature is utilized.”, and it wasprovided that no utility model registration should beobtained for a device which could “very easily” be
made, and the term of a utility model right shouldbe ten years from the date of publication of theexamined utility model application (but notexceeding fifteen years from the filing date). In
1970, in order to cope with the accumulation ofpending applications due to the rapid increase in thenumber of applications, the early laid-open
publication system and the request for substantive
examination system were introduced.
Along with progress and maturity oftechnologies in Japan, the number of utility model
applications has become below the number ofpatent applications since 1981.
As a result of the law amendments to improvethe multiple claims system in 1987, the use of theutility model system has declined significantly.

Under such circumstances, for realizing earlyregistration with the aim of ensuring appropriate
protection of technologies and products, thenon-substantive examination system and theregistrability report system were introduced in
1993. However, the number of utility model
applications continued to decrease significantly,
dropping to a little over 8,000 in 2002 (See thegraph below).(*1)
Under the current Utility Model Law, subjectsof protection shall be “device relating to the shapeor construction of an article or a combination ofarticles” and the term of protection shall be six
years. As corrections after the registration of autility model, it is only allowed to delete a claim or
claims. The right holder may not exercise his right
until he gives a warning by presenting a
registrability report. Within three years from thefiling date of a utility model application, theapplicant may convert his pending application into apatent application.

(*1) Sangyo Kozo Shingikai, Chiteki Zaisan Seisaku Bukai (Intellectual Property Committee of the Industrial Structure
Council), “Jitsuyōshinan seido no miryoku kōjō ni mukete” (For increasing the attractiveness of the utility model
system), January 2004. This report was approved by Tokkyo Seido Sho-iinkai (the Patent System Subcommittee) andthen adopted at the fifth meeting of the Intellectual Property Committee. It is currently available on the following JPO
website with other relevant materials (http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou/toushin/shingikai/jituyou_seido_menu.htm)

IIP Bulletin 2004

● 38 ●

Trends in特許・実用新案登録出願件数の推移
the numbers of patent and utility model applications(10,000
cases)（万件）
45

Patentapplications
特許出願

40
35
30

Period of higheconomic
growth高度成長期

25

Improvementof the multiple
多項制の改善claimssystem with the law
昭和62法改正
amendment in 1987
Introductionof the new Utility
新実用新案
平成５年法改正
Model
System with the law
amendment in 1993

20
15

Utility model
applications under the old law
旧実用新案出願

Introduction of the multiple
claimssystem with the law
多項制の導入amendment
in 1975
昭和50法改正

105Utility model
applications
新実用新案出願
under the new law of 1993

0
1900

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Ⅱ

Utility
Model
Systems
Foreign Countries

1

The State of Utility Model Systems in the
World

in

Among the about 240 countries and regions(hereinafter referred to as “countries”) surveyed inthis study, about 130 countries seem to have autility model system, as a system to supplement
the patent system which is intended to protect
inventions. Many of them have newly established autility model system in relatively recent years. On
the other hand, about 79 countries seem to have noutility model system, most of which adopt
Anglo-American law systems. The existence of autility model system was not confirmed in about 30
countries.
2

Utility Model System in Germany

In Germany, the Design Law(*2) and the Patent
were established in 1876 and 1877
Law
respectively. Patent was granted only for high levelof inventive activities and many patent applications
or patents were refused or invalidated due to lack ofsufficient inventive steps. Therefore, most of smalland medium-sized enterprises (hereinafter referred
to as SMEs) sought protection under the Design
Law for articles of utility that were not so highly
(*3)

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

2000

（年）
(Year)

Note:(備考)2002年は暫定値。
Estimated figures for the year 2002

evaluated from a technical perspective. However,this way of protection was blocked by the decisionof the Imperial Higher Commercial Court in1879(*4): the court considered that the Design Law
was intended only to protect the form of products
whereas the Patent Law emphasizes the material
utilitarian capacity.
Under such circumstances, having been
adopted the recommendation of the Commission ofInquiry for the Revision of the Patent Law(Patentenquête-Kommission) that “It should beconsidered whether and how a protection of utility
designs can be introduced,”(*5), the Utility Model
Law was established in 1891. (*6) Utility model
protection shall come into existence by operation oflaw with the entry in the register for utility models
by the Patent Office without substantive
examination. According to the statement of reasonsfor the legislation, the law was kept as simple aspossible, not only with regard to the work involved
for the authorities, but also in the interest of theindustry, and the subject matter to be protectedshould be assessed without requiring particularspecialist knowledge, by excluding category ofprocess. However, this exclusion was not explicitly
provided in the law. Although it was not admitted bycase laws from the beginning that innovations of alldegrees of complexity are accessible to the Utility
Model Law, (*7) the evidence for the trend oforientating the utility model protection according to
the principle of patent protection was shown in(*2)Gesetz vom 11. Januar 1876, betreffend das Urheberrecht an Mustern und Modellen (Reichs-Gesetzbl. 1976 S.
11)=Geschmacksmustergesetz.
(*3)Patentgesetz vom 25, Mai 1877, RGBl. S. 501.
(*4)Reichsoberhandelsgericht (ROHG) Bd. 24, S. 109 ff.
(*5)Bericht der Patentenquête-Kommission, 1987 S. 33; Nielsen, Grundfragen einer Reform des deutschen
Gebrauchsmusterrechts, 1982 S. 19f; Kraßer, Entwicklung des Gebrauchsmusteerrechts , Festschrift 100 Jahre GRUR, Bd.
I, 617, 62.
(*6) Gebrauchsmustergesetz, RGBl. 1891 Nr. 18 S. 290-293.
(*7) RGZ 41, 74, 76; Meyer, Maschinen im Gebrauchsmusterrecht, GRUR 1393, 11 ff.
● 39 ●IIP Bulletin 2004

such the practices at the Patent Office that
registered a utility model for a device for mining
and conveyor plant already in 1939, (*8) and in
subsequent decisions by the Imperial Court and theFederal Supreme Court.
The possibility of dual protection, e.g. a patent
and a utility model being registered for the same
subject, was recognized from the beginning but notconsidered as a problem. In the case of co-existenceof a national utility model and a corresponding
European patent, dual protection by the national
utility model is not prohibited.
As institutional and terminological similarity
between patent protection and utility model
protection becomes established,(*9) the Utility
Model Law has gradually been led to conquer all
the benefits of patent protection, including
domestic priority. On the other hand, someprovisions that were deleted from the Patent Law
upon the accession to the European Patent
Convention, such as the grace period, have been
maintained under the Utility Model Law.
A utility model application is not examinedwith respect to novelty, inventive step, andindustrial applicability, whereas the examination
with respect to other requirements for protection is
not prohibited. Although the Utility Model Sectionof the Patent and Trademark Office staffed by legal
specialist officers and non technical officers, they
perform their duty as best as possible to refuse
utility model applications in relation to
non-technical devices. (*10)
The utility model protection is not validated by
the registration so that any person may file a claim
for cancellation of the utility model against theregistered owner thereof, though the third party
desiring cancellation must provide proof of theinvalidity. Such pending status of the effectivenessof utility models affects not only the general public
but also the owner himself. The latter is advised to
exploit all possible means at his disposal todetermine the value of the application for his“invention.”
In contrast to the Patent Law, the state of theart to be considered for utility models is limited toany prior art made available to the public in written

form or prior use made available to the public
within the territory of Germany, excluding those
disclosed in verbal communication. A grace period
may be granted under the Utility Model Law anddisclosure at exhibition is also treated differently
from the Patent Law. While an inventive activity isrequired for a patent, a lower level of inventive stepis required for a utility model.
The statistics of the Patent and Trademark
Office for the year 2002(*11) reveal the following
order of the four main categories for utility model
applications: personal effects and household
appliances; health and leisure; vehicles, ships, andaircrafts; and conveyance, lift and saddlery.
Showing a quite different situation from patentapplications where a large number of patentapplications are filed by a small number ofparticular companies, such many utility model
applications are not filed even by large companies,
with some exceptions.(*12) For SMEs, the costs
factor has considerably greater significance forselecting the type of protection, compared withlarge companies.
According to the law amendment in 1990, it
was clearly provided that the protection scope ofutility model should be defined by the claims forprotection as in the case of patent protection. (*13)
Under the Utility Model Law of 1891, the scope ofsubject matter was limited to “models of working
devices or articles of utility or the parts thereof.”
Although some changes in expressions had been
made upon the subsequent law amendments, thescope of subject matter was basically limited to
articles, which was called Spatial Form
Requirement(Raumformerfordernis).
This
requirement was relaxed upon the law amendment
in 1986, by which inventions of circuits werepermitted, and then the requirement was abolishedupon the law amendment in 1990. Until then, it was
discussed whether or not the Spatial Form
Requirement should be abolished. Some of thenegative arguments were as follows: it would be
more difficult to assess the validity and the scope ofprotection of utility models that did not comply with
the Spatial Form Requirement; the abolishment of
this requirement would cause a problem of legal(*8) PA GRUR 1939, 58, 60 ff.
(*9) Amtliche Begründung zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Änderung eines Gebrauchsmustergesetzes, Abschnitt A Nr. 5.,
BlfPMZ 1986, 321 re. Sp.
(*10) These concern, in particular, applications from so-called esoteric field, such as devices allegedly based on cosmic power orother non-demonstrable energies and devices that allegedly perform mechanical work for arbitrarily long period without
energy supply from an external source (contradiction of the physical law of the conservation of energy preservation,so-called perpetuum mobile).
(*11) BlfPMZ 2003, 78, 83.
(*12) G. Weitzel, “Pilotstudie-Die wirtschaftliche Bedeutung des Gebrauchsmusterschutzes in der Europäischen Union”,
ifo-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, 3.1.
(*13) The Utility Model Amendment Law (Gebrauchsmuster Änderungsgesetz) came into effect under Article 5 of the Law forStrengthening the Protection of Intellectual Property and for Fighting Product Piracy (Gesetz zur Stärkung des Schutzes
des geistigen Eigentums und zur Bekämpfung der Produktpiraterie) (PrPG: Produktpirateriegesetz); BlfPMZ 1990,
161-208, 167ff.

IIP Bulletin 2004

● 40 ●

instability to third parties; the essential criterion for
utilitymodel
protection
wasstructuralrepresentability and the recognizability of subject
matter.(*14) However, the legislator, as reported in
the “Recommendation and Report” by the Legal
Committee in 1989, considered to “make the utility
model protection more attractive particularly infavour of SMEs by admitting inventions that are not
structurally defined” and to include, for example,
chemical substances in the scope of subject matter,but to exclude “process” from the scope, because
inventions directed to process would exceed thelimit where the fact that utility model is
unexamined would substantially compromise legal
certainty, and because it was difficult to judge themin the infringement procedure. Exclusion of“process” was within a compromise reached among
those wanting to retain the Spatial Form
Requirement, those wanting the complete
abolishment, and those arguing the relaxation there
of.(*15)
Computer-implemented
inventionsareregisterable as utility models, provided that they
have technical characters and are no “process.”
However, the dominant opinion suggests that suchinventions as described with functional elements
may be protected under the Utility Model Law only
if the described functions affect the constructive
structure or outer form of the inventions. While
computer programs as such are currently excluded
from the scope of subject matter, it would depend
on future legal and policy decisions whether theywould also be protected under the Utility Model
Law, even if they could be included in the scope ofprotection under the Patent Law in the future.
The term of utility model protection was
maximum six years, i.e. the initial term of three
years and the single extension of three years to be
admitted under the Utility Model Law of 1891.
Through subsequent law amendments, it wasincreased to maximum eight years and then to
maximum ten years, and the procedure alsochanged from the extension of the term to themaintenance of the registration.
With respect to an amendment to the claims
after the registration of a utility model, the Utility
Model Law does not have such a provision ofvoluntary amendment as stipulated in the Patent
Law, but only allows disclaimer of individual claims,

or partial cancellation of the utility model resulting
from the modification to the claims during thecancellation procedure. Upon the law amendment in
1986, the partial cancellation system wasintroduced to conform with Section 21(2) of the
Patent Law. However, the case law has
conventionally admitted that a measure forvoluntary limitation of claims by subsequently
submitting the limited claims for the file of theutility model after the registration means adeclaration to the general public, under the law ofobligations, not to assert the claims beyond thelimited scope. (*16) According to the procedure of theFederal Patent Court, the limitation of claim, evenby an element from the dependent claims or fromthe description of the specification, may be allowed
if the limited claim has already been disclosed as apart of the invention. From the viewpoint of this“established practice,” the legislation of voluntary
limitation was deferred in the law amendment of
1986. However, the limited claim subsequently
submitted after the registration, without going
through the cancellation procedure with retroactive
effect, has no possibility to abandon or “restrict” theprotection right, so that it does neither modify the
subject matter and configuration of the registered or
partially cancelled utility model nor change thesubject of the cancellation procedure, whereas forthe infringement procedure, enforcement of the right
will be possible only based on the claims
subsequently submitted after the registration, if any.
The cancellation procedure shall be directed against
the person registered as the proprietor so that theapplication for cancellation by the proprietor himselfof the utility model is not permissible.
While the request for search system wasintroduced upon the law amendment in 1986, themandatory search system was refrained from
imposing, from the viewpoint that potential economic
risks shall be taken by the proprietor upon objectively
unjustified enforcement of his right. Such risk arises
already with the (written) warning under the utility
model. The negligence of the proprietor himself isto be assumed, if he has a reason on his part to
doubt the legal constancy of his right, but enforces
his right against a third party without conducting
search on the state of the art. The legislator has left
open to the initiative of the proprietor his decision
whether a search is to be carried out, and(*14) BMJ Refarat III B 4, Betr.: Änderung des Gebrauchsmustergesetzes: Verzicht auf das Raumformerfordenis;
Ergebnisvermerk über die Anhörung der Sachverständigenkommission für gewerblichen Rechtschutz am 30 November
1988 (Ministry of Justice, Department III B concerning amendment of the Utility Model Law: abandonment of the spatial
form requirement; memorandum on the hearing of the expert commission for industrial right protection on 30 November
1988), Bonn, January 1989, arguments of Prof. Dr. Preu, Dr. Fischer, and Dr. Bruchhausen; Fischer/Pietzcker,
Gebrauchsmusterreform auf halbem Wege?; Eine Erwiderung, GRUR 1986, 208 (The authors assert the necessity of thespatial form requirement particularly on the ground that the infringement procedures should be carried out without thenecessity to obtain expert opinion.)(*15) GRUR, Stellungnahme zur Frage der Erweiterung des dem Gebrauchsmusterschutz zugänglichen Erfinderkatalogs(Opinion on the issue of the expansion of inventor catalogs accessible to the utility model protection), GRUR 1988, 680.
(*16) X ZB 11/94 BGHZ 137, 60=GRUR 1998, 910=BlfPMZ 1998, 311=Mitt. 98, 98.
● 41 ●IIP Bulletin 2004

considered the consistent case law on the
proprietor’s liability for any damage incurred by athird party claimed under the right as an equivalent
to the introduction of the mandatory search.
Upon the law amendment in 1922, the utility
model auxiliary application system was introduced,
in which the registration of a utility model, forwhich an application was filed simultaneously witha patent application, might be deferred until thedisposition of the patent application. However, thissystem caused a large discrepancy between thenumber of applications and the number ofregistrations and produced stock of a large numberof “dead” document files. To replace the auxiliary
application system, the branch-off system wasintroduced upon the law amendment in 1986, in
which a utility model application may be filed,claiming the filing date (priority date) of an earlier
patent application, with respect to the same
invention as the earlier patent application, within
two months from the end of the month when thepatent application was disposed or the opposition
procedure was terminated (and within ten years
from the filing date of the patent application). The
branch-off system not only provide benefits of dual
protection (by patent and utility model), but also isuseful in cases where an invention lacks inventive
activities according to the criterion of the Patent
Law but is eligible as utility model, or where it islikely that the invention is copied during the periodof laid open publication of the patent application.
As for the claim of domestic priority, even if apatent application is filed by claiming the priority ofan earlier utility model application, the earlier
application shall not be deemed withdrawn but shallcontinue to co-exist with the later patentapplication.

high-quality results will be available from thesearch entrusted to the European Patent Office.
Since the French unique seizure procedure
may be commenced even pending the application, it
is said not necessary to obtain patent rights so
promptly as in other countries.
The scope of subject matter is the same as that
under an ordinary patent. In accordance with theEuropean Patent Convention, computer programs
as such are excluded, whereas processes andproducts utilizing programs may be protected ifthey have technical features, but the Frenchgovernment expresses doubt about broadprotection with patent for programs. (*17)
A utility certificate may last for six years. This
term has been set probably because 50% of patents
were abandoned after six years and so as to be inline with the then terms in other countries.
After the grant, the clams may not be amended
other than disclaimer. However, there will be somecases where limitation of claim may be admitted
during the court procedure and confer absoluteeffect with respect to third parties.
Drawing up a search report shall not be
required for a utility certificate application whereas
a search report shall be submitted when bringing an
infringement proceedings.
A patent application may be converted into autility certificate application but not vice versa.
There is no explicit provision prohibiting dual
protection of the same invention by a patent and autility certificate, but which is construed as notallowed, as alternatively formulated in Article 3 ofthe old Patent Law. The costs and time required for
obtaining a utility certificate are almost the same as
those for obtaining a patent.
4

3

Utility Certificate System in France

A utility certificate is a short-term patent thatis regulated by the same provisions of the Patent
Law as applicable to an ordinary patent, with some
exceptional provisions. Due to the reduction in thefee for drawing up a search report, the cost factor
which had been a major reason for choosing theutility certificate system lost significance. The
reason why the number of utility certificate
applications converted from patent applications has
been decreasing since about 1987 may be because
French applicants request search reports upon filing
patentapplications
while
expectingthat

Proposals on the Utility Model System in
the European Union

In 1995, the European Commission submitted
the Green Paper on utility models, making optional
proposals such as the introduction of utility model
system in respective member states, theharmonization of utility model systems in
respective
memberstates,cooperative
relationships for mutual recognition of utility
models among member states, and Community
utility model system.(*18)
The proposal for harmonization under theEuropean Directive gained support from circles
concerned whereas the proposal for the Community(*17) This commentary and the press release thereof are available at the website of the Ministry of Industry of France.
http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/cgi-bin/industrie/sommaire/comm/comm.cgi?COM_ID=1562&_Action=200(*18) Green Paper “The Protection of Utility Models in the Single Market,” COM (95)370 final, 19 July 1995. The explanation isavailable at the following website of the European Commission: http://www.europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l26048.htm
The discussion process is shown at the websites of the European Commission (Pre-Lex) and the European Parliament(The Legislative Observatory):
http://europa.eu.int/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=100336
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/oeil/oeil_ViewDNL.ProcedureView?lang=2&procid=1758

IIP Bulletin 2004

● 42 ●

utility model was not supported. For this reason,
the European Commission submitted an initial
proposal for a European directive in 1997, andsubmitted an amended proposal for the directive in
1999, adopting proposals for amendments by theEuropean Parliament and others.(*19)
Meanwhile, for Community utility model
system, the European Commission, following up
the Green Paper, published the Commission Staff
Working Paper in 2001. (*20) In response to that, themajority were against the introduction of theCommunity utility model system and those who
expressed the importance to SMEs were in aminority.(*21)
As to the scope of subject matter, the Green
Paper proposed including the composition ofsubstances, while refraining from making a final
decision on whether or not to include “processes”,
in light of the discussion in Germany and the
difficulty in finding infringements. Holding that it
was appropriate that biological materials andchemical or pharmaceutical substances orprocesses should be protected by patent, the initial
proposal for the directive excluded them from thescope of subject matter together with computer
programs. The Committee on Legal Affairs
proposed that any substances and processes should
be excluded whereas computer programs thatmerely represent a slight improvement in the
different versions over the previous version should
be protected by utility model. However, only theexclusion of programs was deleted in the amended
proposal.
In 2002, the European Committee submitted
the proposal for a directive on the patentability ofcomputer-implemented inventions in accordancewith the practice at the European Patent Office. (*22)
Intense debates have continued on pros and cons of
this issue since then.
For the duration of protection, ten years is
proposed. The European Parliament proposed tomake a request for search report compulsory forthe first renewal, which was adopted by theamended proposal.

With respect to an amendment to the claims
after the registration of the utility model, the initial
proposal allowed the limitation of claims throughthe cancellation procedure whereas the amended
proposal left this issue to national laws ofrespective member states.
Under the Green Paper, request for search wasan applicants’ option and in the authority of
infringement court. The initial proposal also left it
to respective member states to decide whether or
not to make the search compulsory. On the other
hand, the European Parliament proposed to makethe search compulsory in the event of legal
proceedings, and accordingly, the amended proposal
adopted that member states should provide that asearch report is compulsory in the event of legal
proceedings.
The Green Paper stated that, in order to avoid
that dual protection of patent and utility model forthe same invention would place the right holder indisproportionately strong position, it was necessary
either to prohibit the simultaneous granting of bothpatent and utility model rights or to impose a ban
on invoking these rights successively. The initial
proposal allowed a patent application and a utility
model application to be filed for the same invention
simultaneously or successively, while leaving it tomember states to decide upon whether to providethat a utility model is deemed to be ineffective
where a patent has been granted or takeappropriate measures to prevent instituting
successive proceedings under both sets ofprotection arrangements. Following the proposal for
amendment by the European Parliament, theamended proposal provides that a utility model shallbe deemed to be ineffective where a patent has
been granted, while providing that member statesshall take appropriate measures to prevent
instituting successive proceedings under both setsof protection arrangements.
The proposal on the regulations for Community
patent submitted on August 1, 2000, prohibited dual
protection by a Community patent and a national
patent; in the event of dual protection, the national(*19) Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive approximating the legal arrangements for the protection of
inventions by utility model, COM (97) 691 final, 12 December 1997, O. J. C 36, 3/2/1998, p. 13: Amended proposal for aEuropean Parliament and Council Directive approximating the legal arrangements for the protection of inventions byutility model, COM (99) 309 final, 28 June 1999, O. J. C 248, 29/08/2000, p. 56. The discussion process on these proposals
is also shown at the websites of European Commission (Pre-Lex) and the European Parliament (The Legislative
Observatory) mentioned in note 18 and the following websites.
http://europa.eu.int/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=110257
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/oeil/oeil_ViewDNL.ProcViewByNum?lang=2&procnum=COD/1997/0356(*20) Commission Staff Working Paper Consultations on the impact of the Community utility model in order to update the Green
Paper on the Protection of Utility Models in the Single Market (COM(95) 370 final), COM (2001) 1307, 26 July 2001.
(*21) Summary report of replies to the questionnaire on the impact of the Community utility model with a view to updating theGreen Paper on protection by the utility model in the internal market (SEC(2001)1307). This summary report is currently
available at the following website of the European Commission:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indprop/model/utilreport_en.pdf(*22) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented
inventions (2002/C 151 E/05) COM(2002) 92 final-2002/0047 (COD), 20 February 2002, O.J. C 151, 25/6/2002, O. J. C 151,
p. 129.
● 43 ●IIP Bulletin 2004

patent shall be ineffective, and the same shall apply
to a national utility model. (*23) However, it isunclear whether or not prohibition of dual
protection would be maintained in the case where autility model under the possible new national law inaccordance with the amended proposal or a
Community utility model in accordance with theproposal for regulations coexists with a Community
patent for the same subject matter.
5

Utility Model System in Korea

In 1908, the utility model system wasintroduced for the first time in Korea with the“Patent Order for Korea” issued for applying fourJapanese industrial property laws at that time as it
is in Korea. Therefore, the meaning of theintroduction of the utility model system in Korea
may be the same as that in Japan.
The first Korean Patent Law was enacted in1946 as a unified law also providing for utility modeland design. The military revolutionary governmentof 1961 organized all laws and regulations at thattime, and enacted the first separate utility model law.
Upon the law amendment in 1998, thenon-substantive examination principle and the dual
application system were introduced. According to
explanations of the Korean Intellectual Property
Office (KIPO), “As substantive examinations wereconducted for even small inventions with life cycles
only for two or three years in the same manner as
patent applications, in fact, it took nearly three
years to examine a utility model application.” “In1988, the government started to consider the
introduction of the non-substantive examination
system as a long-term issue, and in June 1996 when
the numbers of patent and utility model applications
increased sharply, finally made an official
announcement of the plan for introducing thesystem. With the gradually shortening products’ life
cycles, the government, aiming actively protecting
utility models and encouraging small- andmedium-sized enterprises and venture companies
to commercialize them and to incentive
technologies developments, …has adopted thefirst-to-register system for utility models.”(*24)
As to the scope of the protection, a device isdefined as “the creation of technical ideas using therules of nature,” and “devices that are industriallyapplicable and relate to the shape or structure of anarticle or a combination of articles” is provided as oneof requirements for registration. Case law andtheories generally exclude processes, substances, andcomputer programs. (*25) Computer programs would

not be protected under the Utility Model Law, even if
they would be protected by the Patent Law in the
future, because they do not fall under the category of“articles” as provided by the Utility Model Law.
The term of a utility model right was provided
as ten years from the date of publication of theexamined application (not exceeding fifteen years
from the filing date), but it was amended in 1998 toten years from the filing date.
A correction may be made to the claims after
the registration within the period designated by thewritten reasons for revocation in response to arequest for technical evaluation, during aninvalidation trial, a trial for a correction, and an
opposition procedure, only to the extent of
narrowing a claim, correcting a clerical error, or
clarifying an ambiguous description.
Any person may request a technical evaluationof a registered utility model. The right holder may
exercise his right only after warning by presenting
a certified copy of the decision to maintain theutility model registration as a result of the request
for technical evaluation.
A technical evaluation has a similar nature tonotification of reasons for refusal or a decision ofrefusal in Japan, in the respect that it is given basedon the substantive examination by an examiner at
the KIPO, this is the reason why the Korean utility
model system is referred to as the first-to-registersystem.
A patent application may be filed based on an
earlier utility model application after the filing datethereof and no later than one year after the date ofregistration thereof. A utility model application may
be filed based on an earlier patent application after
the filing date thereof and before the receipt of acertified copy of the decision to grant a patent ( butwithin 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of the first decision to refuse the patentapplication). Upon the introduction of this “dualapplication” system unique to Korea, theconversion application system was abolished. A
patent or utility model arising from the later
application shall be registered only if acorresponding patent or utility model right arisingfrom the earlier application which is the basis for adual application is abandoned.
It is said that a number of requests fortechnical evaluation and procedure thereof aremuch burden on examiners’ services.
6

Utility Model System in China
In 1984, the Patent Law was enacted as a law(*23) Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community patent (2000/C 337 E/45), COM (2000) 412 final, 2000/0177 (CNS),of 1 August 2000, O. J. C 337, 28/11/2000, p. 28. At the latest stage recognized when writing this report, the proposal was
discussed at the Council of the European Union on March 11, 2004.
(*24) Korean Intellectual Property Office, Description of the first-to-register system for utility model, (Myung Hyun Publishing, 1999).
(*25) Lee Deok Rok, Study on the measures to improve the current utility model system, Collected papers on industrial
property rights), KIPO International Intelleetual property Training Institute ed. (1993), pp.58-59.

IIP Bulletin 2004

● 44 ●

dealing with inventions, utility models (shí yòng xīn
Ⅲ Survey
ontheActualxíng), and designs. All rights granted under this law
ConditionsofJapaneseare referred to as “patents,” which are classified
Companies and Individuals
into invention patents, utility model patents, andSince it is necessary for considering thedesign patents. In the introduction of utility model
Japanese utility model system to understand thesystem, the following points were considered: as
use and awareness of the system among Japanese
the level of economic and social development waslarge enterprises, SMEs, and individuals, a
not so high at that time, utility models withquestionnaire survey was conducted targeting full
low-level technologies would be major results inmember companies of the Nihon Chiteki Zaisan
the invention-creation field for a long term; utility
Kyokai (Japan Intellectual Property Association),model systems in other countries have positive
companies granted creative technology R&D
social effects; utility model system was easy to
subsidies and companies granted regional
establish; utility model rights could be obtained
revitalization creative technology R&D subsidies,
promptly at a low cost; examination work load could
as well as members of the Shadanhojin Fujin
be reduced.
Hatsumeika Kyokai (Japan Women Inventors
Utility models have always ranked top in terms
Association) and members of the Shadanhojin
of the numbers of applications and grant, andZenkoku Fujin Hatsumei Kyokai (which means
therefore it is still considered to have a great
National Women’s Invention Association). The
significance. However, the Chinese patent system,
major results of the survey are shown below.
under which both invention-creations and utility
As advantages of the utility model system,
models, if granted, are referred as “patent”, could
most large enterprises and SMEs pointed out
provide opportunities to sell products with“registration in a short period of time” whereas
improper advertisements using the patent system.
most individuals pointed out “registerability of
As to the scope of protection, a utility model isrights for small inventions.” As disadvantages
defined as “any new technical solution relating to thethereof, most respondents in all categories pointed
shape, the structure, or their combination, of aout “instability of rights due to the non-substantive
product, which is fit for practical use.” A “productexamination principle”.
(chănpĭn)” has been interpreted as a tangible result of
In all categories of respondents, the three majorwork, and the “model (xíng)” of “utility model” (shíreasons to apply for a utility model were due to “loweryòng xīn xíng) means an object with a specific andlevel of technologies than that for patent applications,”
stable outer shape; therefore, electric circuits, liquid,“technologies for products with short life cycles,” andgas, processes, and computer programs are excluded.
“technologies to be promptly granted rights.”
The term of a utility model right was extended
On the other hand, as the reason for thefrom eight years to ten years in 1992.
decrease in the number of utility model applications,
A correction may be made to the claims after
most respondents suggested the “concern about
the registration in the course of the examination of
the instability of rights arising from thea request for invalidation trial, unless it broadens
non-substantive examination.”
the scope of the original claims.
With respect to the co-existence of the patent
After the decision to grant a patent for utility
system and the utility model system, 75% of large
model is announced, the patentee may request toenterprises chose “the patent system alone ismake a search report on his utility model patent,
sufficient” whereas 59% of SMEs and 71% of
whereas the people’s court or the administrative
individuals chose “both systems are necessary”
authority for patent affairs may ask the patentee to(including those who chose “necessary but to be
furnish a search report.
improved”) (see Q4-1).
Only one patent shall be granted for an
identical invention-creation and no dual protectionis allowed.
Q4-1 Whether or not to maintain the Utility Model System
Necessary
12%

The Patent
system alone issufficient
29%

24%
6%
19%

41%

Large enterprises (inner circle)
75%
35%

SMEs (middle circle)
Individuals (outer circle)

Necessary but tobe improved59%● 45 ●IIP Bulletin 2004

Among the points to be improved, “conversion
into a patent application after the registration,”“extension of the term,” and “expansion of theQ4-3

scope of subject matter” had relatively large shares(Q4-3).

Points to be improved in the Utility Model System
Large enterprises

50
40
30
20
10
0

Individuals

44 45
30 32

29

30 31
23 24

19

18

16
5

13

12

13
1 1

divided into those who desired “expansion to all
products” and those “expansion to the same scopeas under the patent system (including processes)”(Q4-5).

Scope of the subject matter

Large enterprises (inner circle)
Individuals (outer circle)

15
5

Co-existence of patentand utility nmodel rights
for the same invention

Protection by a utility
model right until a patentis granted

Conversion into a patentapplication after theregistration

Extension of the term

Expansion of the scope ofsubject matter

4

8

Others33

23

Fee reduction

31

Simplification of theapplication procedure38

Relaxation of therequirments forcorrection

38

Among the respondents who required
improvements in the system, almost half of them
desired that the scope of subject matter be“expanded” (Q4-4), and that half was almost equally
Q4-4

SMEs

Q4-5 Extent of expansion of the copeof subject matter

SMEs (middle circle)

Large enterprises (inner circle)
Individuals (outer circle)

SMEs (middle circle)

Others0%
To bemaintained as is
45%

To be
expanded47%

To the same
scope under thepatent system(including
processes)
50%

37%
55%

47%

50%

3％
0％
45%

46%

54%

52%

To all products
50%

3%
8%
To be
narrowed
8%

As to the term, in all categories, most
respondents desired the term be “changed” (Q4-6),
Q4-6

and most of them choose “ten years from the filingdate” as desired (Q4-7).

Current term

Large enterprises (inner circle)

Q4-7

SMEs (middle circle)

Desirable term

Large enterprises

Individuals (outer circle)

SMEs

Individuals

40
Appropriate
20%

35
30
25

34%

20

36%
66%

15

64%

10

Should bechanged 80%

50

3 years

IIP Bulletin 2004

● 46 ●

8 years

10 years 15 years 20 years

As to corrections, the share of those who
desired the “expansion of the extent of corrections”
significantly surpassed the share of those who did
not desire such expansion. More specifically, theQ4-8share of those who desired that “narrowing claims
be allowed” was relatively large, as 32% of large
enterprises and 24% of SMEs (Q4-8).

Extent of correction

Large enterprises
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

18 17
7

To
clarificationof anambiguousdescriptionTo
correction
to a clericalerror

As is (thedeletion ofclaims only)4yLarge enterprises

SMEs

Individuals

244
95
43
File more
applications

12 12 5File almost
the same
number ofapplications

Not use17

File fewer
applications

122
37 46 15

16

Ⅳ Conclusion
It is seen from this study that it is considered
for utility model system in respective countries tobe mutually complementary with the patent system.
In Germany, Korea, and China as well as the
proposals in the EU, respective utility model systemhave been designed differently from the respective
patent systems, with respect to the scope of subject
matter, the duration, the opportunity to amend or
correct the claims, and the search and others, with

5

6

8

11

To
broadeninga claim

10 12 9To
narrowing a
claim

15

Q4-9 Whether or not to use the Utility
Model System if it is amended

57

Individurals
25

18

As to whether or not to use the utility model
system if it is amended, the majority of large
enterprises chose “not use,” whereas almost half of
SMEs and individuals chose “file more utility model
applications” (Q4-9).

300
250
200
150
100
50
0

SMEs

the objective of protecting inventions or devices
that are not sufficiently protected under the patent
system. In particular, by establishing such utility
model system that makes the procedural period
practically required for registration much shorter
than that required under the patent system, thesecountries intend to protect an invention, even if it
can be protected under the patent system, until apatent is granted for the same.
Furthermore, the utility model system is so
designed that protection of right is available at a low
cost and therefore it is possible for not only large
enterprises but also SMEs and individuals toeffectively protect their inventions and devices.
In the questionnaire survey, most large
enterprises answered that the patent system alone
was sufficient whereas many SMEs and individuals,
pointing out problems of the current system,
desired that the utility model system be improved
and maintained.
Specific measures to improve the utility model
system to be effectively used were discussed indetail at the five meetings of the Utility Model
System Working Group of the Patent System
Subcommittee of the Intellectual Property Policy
Committee of the Industrial Structure Council heldin 2003, and reported in the report prepared by theIntellectual Property Policy Committee. (*26) Basedon the discussion results at the Council, the “Bill toPatent Law Amendment Reducing Patent
Pendency” including the proposal for the revision of
the utility model system was approved by the
Cabinet on February 10, 2004, and submitted to the159th ordinary session of the Diet.
The Bill did not change the scope of subject
matter under utility model but extended the term to(*26) See the report mentioned in supra note 1.

● 47 ●IIP Bulletin 2004

ten years. Under the bill, correction after
registration may be made only once within apredetermined period only to the extent of
narrowing the claims, correcting a clerical error, andclarifying ambiguous description. Furthermore, apatent application may be filed based on theregistered utility model within three years from thefiling date thereof.(*27)(Senior Researcher: Takeyuki Iwai)(*27) The bill was passed the Diet on May 28, 2004 and promulgated as Law No 79 on June 4 after the original Japanese text of
this summary was written.

IIP Bulletin 2004

● 48 ●

● 49 ●IIP Bulletin 2004