★★★ ＜第28回知的財産翻訳検定試験【第15回和文英訳】＞ ★★★
≪１級課題 -知財法務実務-≫【問 1】
The Appellant describes various circumstances to assert that theoriginal decision erred in that the provisions of Article 184-4 (3) and Article184-5 (2) of Patent Act were not determined violating the principle ofnational treatment.
However, as pointed out in the original decision, since the procedureof submission of translation of the description, etc. and the procedure ofsubmission of national documents are completely separate procedures fordifferent purposes, there is a fundamental error with the assertion of theAppellant based on the assumption that the above different procedures areto be compared with each other. The Appellant asserts in various ways that
substantial comparison should be made according to the reality. However,since the Appellant holds an erroneous assumption of comparing theprocedures that are not comparable with each other, there is no room toaccept the Appellant's assertion.
The Appellant asserts that the interpretation of "justifiable reason"prescribed in Article 184-4 (4) in the original decision is incorrect. Thereasons are that the original decision (i) does not reflect the reality ofinequality between nationals and foreigners, (ii) virtually determines that
there was not the "justifiable reason" solely based on the fact of wrong
transmission of an email, (iii) is against the demand of international
harmonization under PCT, and so on.
However, with respect to (i) above, the Appellant's assertion ofpointing out that there is a difference in procedures between nationals andforeigners or that there is reality of inequality between nationals andforeigners by considering the inherently different procedures in the sameway is inappropriate by itself. The reason asserted by the Appellant withrespect to (i) has no ground.

【問 2】
Section 1.
This Rule governs the rights and duties of: ABCDE Co., Ltd.
(this “Company”); and any of its officers, permanent or non-permanent
employees and any other person employed by this Company as well as any
temporarily-staffed worker, seconded worker or other worker employed byanother company and subject to the directions and instructions of thisCompany (the “Employee”), in respect of any invention, device, technique,knowhow and design completed by any Employee and covered in the scope of
this Company’s business (the “Work-Related Invention”) as well as any
copyrighted work created by any Employee in the course of his/her past or
current duties at this Company (the “Employee Work”).

Section 3.
1. If the Director of the Intellectual Property Department has determinedthat the Work-Related Invention notified pursuant to the preceding
Section is the one completed in the course of such Employee’s past or
current duties at this Company (the “Employee Invention”) and has
decided that this Company should acquire the same, then the Director ofthe Intellectual Property Department shall so advise such Employee inwriting.
2. Upon such advice under the preceding paragraph, any and all right in orto such Employee Invention (including without limitation the right topatent therefor) shall be deemed as having been originally vested in thisCompany, unless otherwise provided in the applicable law.
3. If with respect to any Work-Related Invention determined by theDirector of the Intellectual Property Department as not being anEmployee Invention, the Director of the Intellectual Property
Department determines it preferable for this Company to be granted alicense to exploit such Work-Related Invention, then this Company may
propose to such Employee that this Company purchase such license forexploitation. The licensing terms therefor shall be as provided in suchcontract as separately entered by and between this Company and such
Employee.