受験番号：28IPL002

問１．
The Appellant alleges, for various reasons, that the original judgment has an error in
failing to recognize that the provisions under Paragraph 3 of Article 184-4 andParagraph 2 of Article 184-5 of Patent Act are not consistent with the principle ofnational treatment.
However, as the original judgment points out, submission of Japanese translations ofthe description etc. and submission of National Documents are two separate proceduresprescribed for different purposes. The Appellant’s allegation has a fundamental error
because it is based on a comparison of these two different procedures. While theAppellant emphatically alleges that these two must be compared substantiallyconsidering the actual situation, there is no room to accept such allegation as long as it
is based on a false assumption of comparing two incomparable procedures.
The Appellant alleges that the interpretation and application, in the original judgment,of “justifiable reason” prescribed in Paragraph 4 of Article 184-4 of Patent Act is wrong
because the original judgment (1) disregards the reality of inequality between foreigners
and locals; (2) denies the existence of “justifiable reason” virtually only for the fact oferroneous email transmission at the Appellant’s side; and (3) is against the policy ofinternational harmonization in PCT.
However, the above reason (1) does not make sense because the Appellant’s allegationthat different procedures are imposed on foreigners and locals (thus, foreigners andlocals are not treated equally) is based on a comparison of separate procedures.

問２
Article 1
The purpose of this regulation shall be to define, pertaining to inventions, devices,
technology, know-how and designs which are completed by an officer, an employee withor without a contract term and others hired by ABCDE Corporation (hereinafter called“Our Company”) and a temporary worker, a seconded worker and others hired by anothercompany and working under the instruction and supervision of Our Company(hereinafter called “Employee etc.”) and are falling within the scope of the business ofOur Company (hereinafter called “Work-related Invention”) and works which Employees
etc. make in the course of a present or past duty at Our Company (hereinafter called“Employee Work”), the rights and obligations of the Employees etc.
Article 3
1. In case General Manager of Intellectual Property Department determines that theWork-related Invention notified in accordance with the previous article is completed
in the course of a present or past duty, at Our Company, of the Employee etc. who
submitted the notification (hereinafter called “Employee Invention”) and that Our
Company shall assume the right thereof, General Manager of Intellectual Property
Department notifies the same of the said Employee etc. in writing.
2. In case General Manager of Intellectual Property Department notifies the Employeein accordance with the previous paragraph, all the rights to the Employee Invention(including but not limited to the right to obtain a patent) shall be deemed to originallybelong to Our Company, unless otherwise prescribed in laws and regulations.
3. In case General Manager of Intellectual Property Department determines that theWork Invention is not Employee Invention and that Our Company should have alicense on the Work Invention, Our Company may offer, to the said Employee etc., topurchase the license on the Work Invention. The terms and conditions for the license
shall be determined under a separate agreement between Our Company and the said
Employee etc.