4

Ways of Protecting New Technology Related Inventionsin the Life Science Field

The technologies newly emerging in the life science field are characteristic in the following respects: (1) ashift from micro to macro; (2) an increased role of research tools; and (3) digitization of the findings. In order toappropriately protect inventions relating to such new technologies, it is not only necessary to consider measures
for the individual technologies, but it is also important to adjust our basic method of reasoning with respect toissues such as the limits of the scope of protection under the Patent Law and the balance between the scope ofprotection and disclosure.
In this report, the characteristics of the newly emerging technologies were confirmed and problems that
arose with respect to patent protection were highlighted. Then, the gap between the inventors’ awareness and thecurrent law was analyzed from the perspectives of description requirements and usefulness. At the same time,
the patentability of inventions relating to new technologies was studied in detail to investigate the limits of thescope of protection under the Patent Law and to indicate various problems and methods for solving them.
Furthermore, the way in which findings that cannot be protected under the Patent Law could be protected inlight of general tort law was also examined.

Ⅰ Newly Emerging Technologies inthe Life Science Field and theFindings

candidate treatment genes] Æ [Lead identificationand optimization] Æ [Pre-clinical trials] Æ [Clinical
trials] (See Figure 1). Of these stages, a great dealof newly emerging technologies are seen in the[Selection of candidate genes associated with thedisease], [Selection of candidate treatment genes]
and the [Lead identification and optimization], so
these stages were used as the focus of theseinvestigations.

Starting from the genome information
accumulated in databases, the development ofgenome-based drugs can be roughly divided into
the following stages: [Selection of candidate genes
associated with the disease] Æ [Selection ofFig. 1

Genomeinformation

Genome-based drug development process and joint research agreements
Selection ofcandidate genes
associated with thedisease

Selection ofcandidatetreatment genes

Lead identificationand optimization

Sequence data

Expression profiling

Gene function analysis

Gene

Differential Display

cDNA

GeneChip（in vitro, in vivo）
Expression enhancement⇒ phenotype

EST

DNA micro-array
SAGE
Quantitative PCR(TaqMan)In situ hybridization
Immunohisitochemistry
SNPs analysis
Link analysis ofhereditary disease

cDNATransfixion

High throughput
screening
Combinatorial
chemistry
Structure-based
drug design

Tg mouse
Expression suppression⇒ phenotype
Antisense, RNAi etc.
KO mouse
Protein interaction analysis
Y2H, M2H

cloning

Expression
analysisGenefunctionanalysis

Protein 3D
structure
analysis

Joint
research

Joint
research

Joint
research

Joint
research

IIP Bulletin 2003

● 28 ●

Pre-clinical
trials

Efficacy andpharmacology
tests
Pharmacokinetics
tests
Safety tests

Clinical trials

Evaluation of
drug efficacy
Safety evaluation

New drug[Selection of candidate genes associated with thedisease]At this stage, expression profiling is performed
using comprehensive expression analysis methods
with samples from a variety of disease patients. For
example, the methods used include DNA Chip
methods like Differential Display (DD) and
GeneChip, DNA micro-array methods in which
DNA is affixed to a slide glass at high-density, andSAGE (Serial Analysis of Gene Expression)
methods.
The candidate genes related to the disease are
selected using these methods; but, at this stage, it is
not clear whether the genes are important(candidate treatment genes) for the actual
development of the drug.
Therefore, it is necessary to perform genefunction analysis and select the genes that will be
the candidates for the treatment.

[Selection of candidate treatment genes]
For this stage, an analysis is performed of thespecific functions of the candidate genes associatedwith the disease, as well as the work to select thecandidate treatment genes that are useful for drug
development. In comparison with the technologies
for the selection of the candidate genes associatedwith the disease stage, there are many technologies
here that are not yet fully developed, and aretime-consuming. For this reason, this stage is therate-limiting step in the genome-based drug
development process. Technologies used include
full-length cDNA cloning, transgenic animal,
knock-out animals, antisense oligo DNA methods,
ribozyme methods, dsRNAi methods, andMammalian Two-Hybrid methods.
Table 1 summarizes each of the above
technologies and the issues.

Table 1 Technologies and issues for the selection of candidate treatment genes (gene function
analysis) stage
Technology

Issue

Full-length cDNA cloning

Development of technology to obtain full-length cDNA with better
efficiency than the oligo-capping or 5’-RACE sequencing, andtechnology to reduce PCR misinterpretation

Vectors used to enhance gene expression

Development of technology to improve introduction and expression
efficiency, technology to differentially introduce and express cells(tissue), and virus vectors with low cytotoxicity

Transgenetic mouse

Development of tissue and time differentiation promoters for
introduction of exogenous genes

Antisense oligo DNA

Development of modification oligos, to improve elements such as cell
membrane permeability, nuclease resistance, and hybridization

Ribozyme

Development of handling and planning improvement methods

dsRNAi methodinterference)(double-stranded

RNA Development of improvement methods (such as a decrease in
antiviral response), and of search and retrieval methods for optimal
sequencing

Knock-out mouse（Cre/loxP）

Shorter production time (high throughput, conditional knock-out
mouse production technology)

Protein interaction(Mammalian Two-Hybrid method, etc.)

Improved detection sensitivity, and shorter assay times[Lead identification and optimization]
For this stage, the work is performed to screen
the small nucleus compounds (lead compounds) thatact on proteins coded by the candidate treatment
genes. The technologies used include techniques for
actual screening, such as target-base assay, cell-baseassay, and binding assay, as well as virtual screening
techniques like LBDD and SBDD. The screening
technologies for ADME/Tox are also used.

Ⅱ Technology
International
Technology
Competition

that
RequiresCooperation andthat
Requires

A major characteristic of the newly emerging
technologies in the life science field is a shift frommicro to macro, i.e., technologies that come from a
broad range of comprehensive research.
This type of research cannot be performed byan individual or at a single laboratory. It must be
conducted nationally or regionally, and international● 29 ●IIP Bulletin 2003

scientific organizations’ activities for connecting
such research are also active.
The results from this comprehensive research
are shared assets of humankind. Therefore, theworld is oriented toward setting the principle thatthe results of research projects, which areconducted with public funding for the purpose of
improving the international efficiency of research by
worldwide sharing, are to be made public (principleof public access). For example, the ISGO is aninternational scientific organization working on theanalysis of the tertiary structure of proteins. It has
decided that guidelines (Airlie Agreement) will bestrictly observed, including: (1) the structural
coordinates obtained will be entrusted to PDB
immediately after the structure is determined, andwill be made public, and (2) the status of progress of
the research will be reported on official sites.
In addition, the Human Proteome Organization(HUPO), which is the international scientificorganization for the field of proteome andproteomics, is also proceeding to build a system
based on the promotion of fair information
distribution, and steps are being taken to request
public access to research results.
In this respect, technology that is based onwide-ranging, comprehensive research can beconsidered technology that should be developed
through international cooperation. However, there
are countries (research projects) that first try to
promote utilization in the domestic industries
without making public the results obtained during
the research by using the point that the principle ofpublic access in the Airlie Agreement only applies topurely public research projects. In other words, suchtechnologies require competition as well asinternational cooperation.
In this way, the policy to not publish
intermediate research results to file patentapplications during the unpublished period or to
obtain head-start advantage for a certain periodmeans, for researchers, that they cannot freely
publish their own research results, which may
actually lower the incentive for researchers.
In the relationship between the principle ofpublic access and the patent system, theharmonization of a grace period for all countries isrequired. Furthermore, since most of the results ofcomprehensive research are fundamental data, there
is a need to investigate means of legal protection
other than those available under the Patent Law.

Ⅲ Problems with Protection in theLife Science Field
This section analyzes the gap between
inventors’ awareness and the current law from theviewpoints of the description requirements ofspecifications and usefulness, on the basis of the

IIP Bulletin 2003

above-mentioned characteristics and problems of
newly emerging technologies. This part thensearches the limits of the scope of protection under
the Patent Law through specific investigation ofpatentability of new technology-related inventions
that use data on the tertiary structure of proteins.
Moreover, the desirable handling of findings thatcannot be protected under the Patent Law is also
considered in light of general tort law and others.
1

Gap between Inventors’ Awareness andCurrent Law (Examination Standards)

As a result of the analysis of examples under
the current examination standards, the following
problems were extracted in terms of the description
requirements of specifications and usefulness.
Problem c [Enabling requirement]
In contrast to the United States, thedescription of the entire claim is not judged in a
uniform way under the current law, so thefulfillment of the enabling requirement may begenerously judged on parts other than modes forcarrying out the invention described in
specifications, thereby causing the possibility thatbroad rights beyond inventors’ awareness are
granted.
Therefore, if there arise any doubts on thefulfillment of the enabling requirement, examiners
need to actively require applicants to clarify theenablement. Through this measure, applicants’awareness at the examination stage is at least
retained for records, and claims for illegally broadrights in infringement suits can be prevented.
Problem d [Enabling requirement]
Under the current law, to describe one mode ofuse in the detailed description of the invention isconsidered sufficient to judge the relevant inventionof product as “usable” and thus fulfills the enabling
requirement. However, since “information” is theessence of many new technology-related inventionsin the life science field, the modes of use of suchinventions are wide-ranging. Therefore, if a strong
right, “patent for substance,” is granted to suchinventions, the right is highly likely to be an
obstacle to downstream product development using
the relevant inventions, beyond the inventor’s
awareness.
Problem e [Certified experiment results]
Under the current law, if the fulfillment of theenabling requirement is denied on the ground thatparts other than modes for carrying out the claimed
invention are not workable, the relevant applicant
may be able to obtain a patent by submitting
certified experiment results after filing a patentapplication. This will create the possibility ofobtaining rights beyond inventors’ awareness, so
certified experiment results should not be easily
relied upon.
Problem f [Definiteness]● 30 ●

Under the current law, definiteness tends to be
judged on the basis of the interpretation of terms
described in the claims. Therefore, even if theessence of an invention of which the inventor isaware is the same, the technical scope of theinvention may be judged as being largely different
due to slight divergences in the terms described in
the claims. Moreover, the excessive application ofsuch practice will have an adverse effect on theobtainment of rights for inventions that use newterms and concepts, thereby causing the possibility
that the inventors of pioneer inventions can obtain
only extremely limited rights contrary to theirawareness. Therefore, definiteness must be judged
not by excessively emphasizing the interpretation ofterms but by understanding the essence of
inventions described in the claims.
Problem g [Usefulness]
Under the current law, the concept of“usefulness” is used for either “industrial
applicability” or “enabling requirement” or both.
For many new technology-related inventions in thelife science field, the usefulness requirement that
requires proof of specific effects becomes a problem,
and thus inventions may not be sufficiently
protected contrary to the inventors’ awareness.
Consequently, this report proposes to separate therequirement of “usefulness” from the enabling
requirement provided in Section 36(4) of the Patent
Law, unify the requirement of “usefulness” into
“industrial applicability” stated in the main
paragraph of Section 29, and leave the requirementsof “how to use” and “how to make” in Section 36(4).
Through this, the examiners come to have theburden of proof of the “industrial applicability”
stated in the main paragraph of Section 29, while
applicants come to have the burden of proof of
Section 36(4). This enables a similar handling tothat in the United States and Europe, and is
expected to achieve an effective protection of
inventions.
Problem h [Protection of invention of process]
Under the current law, in judging the novelty of
inventions of process, inventions will not be deemed
to be novel in principle if their constitutions (partsof mode for carrying out the invention) are the same,even if their purposes differ. On the other hand,even when findings and modes of use are the samefor use inventions, if the purposes (usages) differ,the inventions are considered to be findings forlimited use and thus deemed to be novel as
inventions of product. For harmonization between
rights for inventions of product and rights forinventions of process, it is necessary to clarify
conditions for inventions of process and consider
their purposes (usages) as the constitution of theinventions.
Problem i [Support requirement]
Under the current law, Section36(6)(i) of the
Patent Law provides that the invention described in

the claims shall be that described in the detailed
explanation of the invention in the specifications,but this point is only formally judged in the actual
situation. When applying the support requirement,
all possible modes for carrying out the claimed
invention must be reasonably understandable fromthe detailed description of the invention for the
purpose of not losing sight of the essence of theinvention. Such application is considered necessary
to prevent claims of a broad scope of right that arecontrary to inventors’ awareness.
2

Limits of the Current Legal Standards

This section investigates the limits ofprotection under the Patent Law under the current
legal standards by considering the patentability ofbioinformatics-related
technologies(virtual
screening processes) and inventions, which are
representative examples of newly emerging
technologies, and proposes problems as well as theirsolutions.
(1) Protection of Data on Tertiary Structure ofProteins, etc.
Under the current law, for example, in the caseof “preparing output data by processing input datawith a specific algorithm of the bioinformatics
system,” if data on the tertiary structure of proteinsor pharmacopoeia data, which becomes “input data”
or “output data,” is claimed by itself or is made to bea media claim, it will not be considered to be an“invention” and thus will not be protected.
However, considerable time and costs are
required to obtain data on the tertiary structure ofproteins or pharmacopoeia data, and it is also truethat these data themselves have significant
economic value. Therefore, some sort of protectionof such data is required.
Thus, given that such data are recognized as“inventions” and protected under the Patent Law
under certain requirements, the following problems
are considered to arise.
Problem c [Easiness of copying]
If a part of the data is protected as an invention,
the data itself will be described in the specifications,so third parties can very easily copy the data by
incorporating it into their own computers.
Problem d [Difficulty in proving infringement]
In the information processing system,
information processing is usually conducted bysequentially transmitting data to an algorithm
executed at a CPU, so it is extremely difficult toprove what data infringers used (information
processing) through the information processing
system in the past.
Problem e [Absolute exclusive right]
Unlike copyright, patent right is an absolutely
exclusive right, so if the same data exists, therelevant right can be executed without
consideration of the process of the data creation.

● 31 ●IIP Bulletin 2003

The grant of an absolute exclusive right to suchinformation that can be considered to be“knowledge” may severely hinder the research anddevelopmentoftechnologies
using
the
“knowledge.”
For
example,bioinformatics
companies and the patentees of data on protein
structure themselves have to conduct investigations
on their infringement against other’s data patents,
whenever they refer to well-known data on protein
structure in a computer or create new data onprotein structure.
Problem f [Difficulty in examination]
In terms of examining the inventive step ofdata, since the value of data differs depending on thetype and property of the data, it is probably
extremely difficult to carefully examine the value ofeach datum at the examination stage to grant
appropriate protection.
In this way, it is considered difficult to protect
data that are newly emerging technologies in the life
science field themselves under the Patent Law.
However, it is also true that such data themselves
have significant economic value, so some sort ofprotection is necessary. Solutions are presented
below.
Solution c [Distribution through copy mart]
It is possible, on the assumption of the current
agreement-based protection, to distribute data on
the tertiary structure of proteins and pharmacopoeia
data by registering them with the lump-sum
publication/agreement-based electronic copyright
management system for digital content like “copymart.”(*1)
The specific method is to register the creator,
type and content of data, etc. and to keep thecontent of data unpublished for a certain period after
registration. This system enables users to accessthe content of data by concluding an agreement forthe obtainment of desired data and paying aprescribed counter value after inspecting publishedinformation.
Solution d [Unique legislation]
A solution by unique legislation with apublication system as follows is also worth
considering on the assumption of registration with aunified “structure data right management system”
like “copy mart” (principle of registration): thesystem to conduct the prescribed formality check of
the registered content, grant an exclusive right(relative exclusive right) to registered structure
data, etc., provide a remedy for illegal copies, andpublish the content of the data after a certain period
from registration.

(2) Protection of Virtual Screening Processes
The following describes the results of theinvestigation on the patentability of inventions of
the virtual screening process under the current
legal standards from the standpoint that theinventions of the virtual screening process should
be protected by patent.
Problem c [Completion of invention]
If a virtual screening model reflects the realworld at a certain level, and consequently,
compound information that has been obtained fromscreening corresponds to a compound that is
combined with actual proteins with “constantcertainty and reproducibility,” the “utilization of alaw of nature” should be recognized in the idea ofthe virtual screening itself. In other words, theutilization of a law of nature can be found not only ina system working in cooperation with hardware
resource but also in the idea of using the model
itself. Moreover, the idea may sometimes prove to
be a “technical idea” through identification of a“publicly-known algorithm” that has shown
conformity to information on the new tertiary
structure of proteins.
Problem d [Novelty of invention]
Under the current law, the inventions of thevirtual screening process that are different from theconventional technologies only in data itself are notconsidered to involve novelty, and such position of
the Japan Patent Office is also indicated in theReport on Comparative Study by the Trilateral
Patent Offices. However, the mere Examination
Guidelines for Computer Software Related
Invention, which do not rely on the viewpoint of theadvance of the drug development industry, areapplied to the inventions of the virtual screening
process of which characteristics exist in informationon the new tertiary structure of proteins, and thepatentability of the patent of technology that isessentially the subject of protection is denied in a
uniform way. This result is considered unfavorablefrom the purposes and principle of the Patent Law.
Therefore, it is proposed to assess the noveltyof inventions based on the content of information.
Information that brings about a technical effect andis obtained in a purely scientific process that is
inseparably from a method using a law of nature,such as information on the new tertiary structure ofproteins, should be recognized as a numeric limit
with technical significance and thus be considered apositive element for the requirements of the novelty
and inventive step of inventions. On the other hand,
it is appropriate to deny the novelty of pure(*1) Based on the copy mart plan proposed by Zentaro Kitagawa (professor emeritus of Kyoto University). (For example, see“Gouishisutemu Toshite No Chosakuken Shijo—Kopi Maato Ron— (Copyright Market as a System for Agreement—Copy
Mart Theory—),” Chitekizaisan Housei (Intellectual Property Legislation), Tokyo Nunoi Shuppan, 1996, and Zentaro
Kitagawa “Kopi Maato Kousou (Copy Mart Plan), Chiteki Souzou Jidai No Chiteki Zaisan (Intellectual Property at the Ageof Intellectual Creation), Keio University Press, 2000, p.98-103, etc.) The copy mart outline is shown below. For details,
see the Kyoto Comparative Law Center’s Web site (http://www.copymart.gr.jp), etc.

IIP Bulletin 2003

● 32 ●

information of which value can be found only in
artificial arrangements and which does not bring any
technical effect, such as an address list.
Problem e [Inventive step of invention]
The inventions of the virtual screening processof which characteristics exist in information on the
new tertiary structure of proteins depend on the
difficulty of creating them. So, they can be evaluatedfrom the aspect of the process of obtaining specificthree-dimensional information and the aspect ofeffectsbroughtbyutilizing
specific
three-dimensional information.
Moreover, in order to appropriately protect theinventions of the virtual screening process,examination from the aspect of the effects of patentrights is also important. Problems from these effects
are described below.
Problem c [Experiment and research]
Regarding the interpretation of “experiment or
research” as provided in Section 69(1) of the Patent
Law, there is a prevailing theory that experimentand research should be divided into research related
to the theme of the relevant invention and mere
means for mere research. In this case, the use of ascreening process for drug development is use asmeans for research, and it thus constitutes aninfringement. However, according to thisinterpretation, it is hard to distinguish exploitationby companies and universities, etc., so pureexperiment and research activities by universities,
etc. may constitute infringements of patent rights.
Moreover, the above-mentioned division is usuallydifficult. On the other hand, if Section 69(1) of the
Patent Law is applicable not only to theimprovement of patented inventions but also to actsthat are expected to contribute to the obtainment ofbroad technical knowledge or the general progressof science and technology, all kinds of uses ofscreening processes will fall under “experiment or
research.” However, in this case, it is extremely
difficult to achieve the effective protection ofpatents for screening process. In this way, it is hardto determine which interpretation is appropriate, orwhether another interpretation should be adopted,
but there is a desire for an early solution to the
problem by the court in order to eliminate theuncertain condition of the drug development
industry.
Problem d [Whether simple process or
manufacturing process]Although it has been contested as to whether
the screening process is a simple process or aprocess of manufacturing the product, it isconsidered to be a simple process when considering
the purport of the Supreme Court decision on the
Kallikrein Case. Therefore, the effect of its patentright is not considered to be extendable to theresults obtained through the process.
Problem e [Limit of effect based on the principle ofterritoriality]

The effect of patent rights extends only to theacts of exploitation conducted in Japan on the basisof the principle of territoriality. If the screening
process is considered to be a simple process and theeffect of its patent right does not extend to theresults obtained through the process, even if therelevant screening were conducted in a foreigncountry where any patent for the process has notbeen obtained and the results are imported and soldin Japan, the patentee could not countervail suchacts in any way.
Problem f [Patent of virtual screening process andpatent of wet screening process]
Virtual screening process is technology thatrecreates the utilization of a law of nature in the wet
screening process on a computer, so the technicalideas of both processes are common. The developerof a wet screening method may try to obtain apatent that is considered to include a corresponding
virtual screening process, but it is extremely
difficult to give descriptions that fulfill therequirements for patentability, such as definitenessof invention. In addition, regarding whether it ispossible to prevent the exploitation of acorresponding virtual screening process throughapplication of the doctrine of equivalent to a patentof the wet screening process, it may be extremely
difficult to fulfill the requirement of “easily
replaceable.” Therefore, there does not seem to be
any conflict of effect between the patents for bothprocesses.
Problem g [Combination of a patent of the virtual
screening process and a patent of the wet screening
process]
For a claim of a screening process that iscreated by combining a patent of the virtual
screening process and a patent of the wet screening
process, when the relevant dry screening processcompany and the relevant wet screening processcompany are separate, it is difficult to allege that theclaim constitutes a direct infringement because of
the principle of unity of right. However, as decided
in the Suchiropi-zu (expandable polystyrol) Case, if
the claim were considered to institute a joint
unlawful act, it might be possible to question
responsibility by considering the claim to be direct
infringements of both processes.
3

Protection of Findings that Cannot be
Protected by Patent

As mentioned above, according to the theory ofinterpretation of the current law, it is hard toconsider data on the tertiary structure of proteins tobe the subject of protection under the Patent Law.
However, since certain usefulness andeconomic value are to be found through theaccumulation of data of this kind, some legal
protection as a kind of information source will be
required.

● 33 ●IIP Bulletin 2003

The following describes the results of
examining the protection of findings that cannot beprotected under the Patent Law.
c [Protection by trade secret]In order to protect data on the tertiary
structure of proteins as trade secrets provided in
Article 2 (4) of the Unfair Competition Prevention
Law, the data must fulfill the three requirements:
being preserved as secret, being publicly unknown
and being useful. If the data fulfills all requirements,
the relevant patentee is approved to have a right torequire an injunction of the act of unfair competition
against one who conducts the act and a right todemand compensation for damage caused by the act.
Regarding data of which functions have notbeen ascertained, there is room for discussion overwhether the data fulfills the above-mentioned
usefulness requirement, but in terms of theusefulness requirement for trade secrets, a highlevel of usefulness should not be required according
to the purport of the system.
d [Protection by law of contract]
For findings that are not protected under the
Patent Law, to deal the authority to use themthrough voluntary conclusion of a contract between
parties concerned cannot be in principle prohibited(principle of liberty of contract). However, if thecontent of the contract is considered to be contrary
to public policy or good morals (Article 90 of the
Civil Code), the effect of the contract may be denied.
The example of such is that a contract for offering
the use of a database includes a contract clausestating that all rights to obtain patents for inventions
created by using the relevant database or all patents
for such inventions are transferred to the offerer ofthe relevant database.
e [Protection by general tort law]
In recent times, there has been a theory behind
judicial precedents that an unlawful act isconstituted even for information property that is notrecognized to be explicitly protected under the
Copyright Law, under certain theory of
requirements.(*2) According to the theory, if thefollowing four requirements are fulfilled, therelevant act may constitute an unlawful act: when (i)one person has created a database through thecollection and establishment of information by using
costs and labor and (ii) has been carrying out
business operations by manufacturing and selling
the relevant database, another person (iv) replicatesthe data of the relevant database and sells thecreated database (iii) in the area that overlaps withthe sales territory of the first person.
Taking into consideration the value of databaseas information property and the protection of
invested capital, it seems necessary to establish thetheory of requirements that expands the area wherean unlawful act is constituted. However, sinceprotection by tort law may substantially grantsemi-permanent legal protection, careful judgment
is required. Nevertheless, in the case of protection
by tort law, legislative remedy only includes a claim
for damage, and remedy by a right to require an
injection cannot be expected.
f [Protection by the Copyright Law]
According to the current Copyright Law, theselection of information or the creativity insystematic construction is to be evaluated, and foredited works, attention is paid to the selection ofmaterials and creativity in sequences. Therefore,
generally, a database created by comprehensively
analyzing and accumulating data on the tertiary
structure of proteins is not greatly expected to beprotected as works, excluding databases that wereedited in a specific way.
g [Protection by technical protection means]
For computerized findings such as a database,companies are expected to set a technical protectionmeans to eliminate use and access by those otherthan authentic users before offering use, and thelegal regulations under the Unfair Competition
Prevention Law are applicable to the act oftransferring a device or program to circumvent suchtechnical protection means.
(Researcher: Kunihisa Masuoka)(*2) Decision on the Vehicle Database Case (Tokyo District Court, interlocutory judgment on May 25, 2001, Hanrei Jihou, No.
1774, p. 132; Tokyo District Court, judgment on the merits of the case on March 28, 2002, Collection of Judgments ofIntellectual Property Right Cases on the Supreme Court’s Web site: http://www.courts.go.jp).

IIP Bulletin 2003

● 34 ●

● 35 ●IIP Bulletin 2003