5 System Ensuring that Stable Patents Are Granted (*)
Since the 2003 revision of the Patent Act, the post-grant opposition system and the patent invalidation trial
system have been integrated and unified, and have been replaced with a new patent invalidation trial system that
also functions as a post-grant opposition system. However, the current patent invalidation trial system does notseem to be performing well as an alternative to the former post-grant opposition system, because the number ofrequests for patent invalidation trials, which showed a temporary increase after the 2003 revision, has remainedat the pre-revision level. As a result of a reduction in the examination pendency period and a rise in the number ofrequests for accelerated examination, there has been an increase in the number of patents granted without
providing third parties an adequate opportunity to submit information. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that,in comparison with other countries, Japan offers fewer opportunities for post-grant patent screening foreliminating defective patents.
This research study has been conducted to prepare basic data on which to base a future system that would
ensure that stable patents are granted by studying and analyzing the current patent invalidation trial system, thecurrent information submission system, etc.

I

Introduction

1

Background of this Research Study

In order to ensure the validity of patents, thepatent invalidation trial system was established asa means to extinguish defective patents (Article
123 of the Patent Act). Since the 2003 revision of
the Patent Act, the post-grant opposition systemand the patent invalidation trial system have been
integrated and unified, and later replaced with a
new patent invalidation trial system thatfunctions as a post-grant opposition system.
However, the current patent invalidation trial
system does not seem to be performing well as analternative for the former post-grant opposition
system, because the number of requests forpatent invalidation trials, which showed atemporary increase after the 2003 revision, hasremained at the pre-revision level. It has been
pointed out that the usability of a patent
invalidation trial, which is conducted through oralproceedings in principle, is lower than that of theformer post-grant opposition system. Moreover,the post-grant information submission system,
which was established in conjunction with therevision, has also failed to attract many users.
As a result of a reduction in the examination
pendency period and a rise in the number ofrequests for accelerated examination, there has
been an increase in the number of patents granted
without providing third parties an adequate
opportunity to submit information. In particular, if
a decision of patent grant is made prior to

publication of the application, the patent would be
granted without providing third parties with any
opportunity at all to submit information.
Furthermore, it has been pointed out that, incomparison with other countries, Japan offers
fewer opportunities for post-grant patentscreening for eliminating defective patents.
2

Purpose of this Research Study

The purpose of this research study is toprepare basic data to discuss a future system thatwould ensure that stable patents are granted bystudying and analyzing the current systems,
including the patent invalidation trial system andthe information submission system, etc.
3

Method of this Research StudyIn this research study, in order to achieve theaforementioned purpose, we did the following:- We established a committee of 11 members: 5
academic experts with relevant knowledge andexperience, 4 experts from the industrial circle,
and 1 lawyer and 1 patent attorney. The
committee held four meetings to discuss thenecessity for a means to allow easy and earlypost-grant review of patent validity from theperspectives of experts in the fields of law andeconomics.
- We conducted a domestic questionnaire survey
concerning the patent invalidation trial system,
the information submission system, and theformer post-grant opposition system by(*) This is an English translation of the summary of the FY2012 JPO-commissioned research study report on the issues
related to the industrial property rights system.

●

IIP Bulletin 2013 Vol.22

1 ●sending a questionnaire to 1,071 companies andfirms (971 companies, etc. and 100 law firms
and patent attorneys' offices) to collectinformation from the respondents regarding
their use of the systems, the purpose of use,
and any problems in connection with thesystems. We received replies from 485
companies and offices;- We conducted a domestic interview survey on
10 companies and firms (9 companies and 1 lawfirm) selected from the respondents of theaforementioned domestic questionnaire survey
in order to collect opinions, etc., concerning
the issues and problems related to the patent
invalidation trial system, the information
submission system, and the former post-grant
opposition system.
- We conducted an overseas interview survey
with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO), three law firms in the UnitedStates, and 1 University researcher in order tounderstand the latest system designed toreview the validity of a patent easily after the
grant of the patent.
- We studied, examined, and analyzed the patent
invalidation trial system, the opposition system,
etc., of various countries (including Japan) fromthe legal and economic perspectives by using
information collected from books, academic
papers, judicial precedents, research reports,
committee reports, databases, the Internet,
etc.

Ⅱ The Current System to Ensurethat Stable Patents Are Granted
in Japan and Related Issues
1

Patent Invalidation Trial (Article 123 of
the Patent Act)

(1) The Purpose, Outline, and Use of the
System, and Related Issues
The 2003 law revision abolished thepost-grant opposition system and created a newpatent invalidation trial system that also functions
as a post-grant opposition system.
The number of requests for patent
invalidation trials per year had sharply increased
since the abolishment of the post-grant opposition
system between 2003 and 2004. An analysis of
the requests filed during this period revealed that
there was an increase in the number of requests
made within one year from patent registration.
This indicates that the increase can be attributed
to the filing of requests for patent invalidation●

trials made in lieu of the filing of post-grant
oppositions, although the increase is muchsmaller than the number of oppositions filed
under the former post-grant opposition system.
In 2011, there were 269 requests for patent
invalidation trials, which means that the numberof requests has returned to the level it had beenprior to the abolishment of the post-grant
opposition system.
These facts suggest that, in the year (2004)
following the abolishment of the post-grant
opposition system, the new patent invalidation
trial system satisfied a part of the applicants' needto function as the opposition system, while,currently, the patent invalidation trial systemrarely serves such function and plays no activerole as a substitute for the abolished post-grant
opposition system.
(2) Results of the Domestic Questionnaire
Survey and the Domestic Interview
SurveyThe domestic questionnaire survey revealed
that many respondents use the patent invalidation
trial system as a "means against the exercise of apatent right (e.g., upon filing of an infringement
lawsuit or upon receipt of a warning)" and as a"means against another person's patent thathinders or could hinder its own business in the
future (including R&D activities and otheractivities that affect its future operations)." Many
respondents have stated that they would hesitate
to use or give up using the patent invalidation
trial system against another person's patent even
if it is closely related to their own business if theyfind the procedural burdens and oral proceedings
overwhelming, or if they find it reasonable topresent the reasons for invalidation or request apatent invalidation trial only after receiving awarning, etc., or after getting involved in a
dispute. In the domestic interview survey, some
respondents also pointed out that, even if theydetect another person's patent that may berelated to their own business, they would find it
difficult to use the patent invalidation trial system,
given the significant procedural and monetaryburdens and the difficulty to use the systemanonymously.

2 ●IIP Bulletin 2013 Vol.22

2

Post-grant Opposition (Article 113 of the
Patent Act Prior to the 2003 Revision)(1) Background of the Introduction of the
System and the Outline and Use of the
SystemThe pre-grant opposition system wasabolished by the 1994 revision of the Patent Act
in order to solve the problem that the system
could delay patent grants and to promoteinternational harmonization. The post-grant
opposition system was then introduced as areplacement. At the time, the roles of the
post-grant opposition system and the patent
invalidation trial system were considered asfollows:(i) The purpose of the post-grant opposition
system is to increase patent reliability andallow the Japan Patent Office (JPO) itself toreceive an opposition to a patent andexamine its patentability and to makecorrections if the JPO finds the patent
defective.
(ii) On the other hand, the patent invalidation
trial system is a means to solving a dispute
between the interested parties over apatentability decision by the JPO. This is
why the system is usually used as a means ofdefense by an interested party involved in apatent dispute, such as a patent infringement
lawsuit.
In 2003, the post-grant opposition system
was used in 4,800 cases (a total number ofapplications). The results of a research conducted
in 2003 have shown that 76% of the patents thatwere subject to the post-grant opposition systemwere corrected or revoked due to a certain defect.
(2) TheResultsoftheDomestic
Questionnaire Survey and the Domestic
Interview Survey
According to the results of the domestic
questionnaire
survey,more
respondents
answered that they use the post-grant opposition
system "as a means against another person's
patent that hinders or could hinder its own
business in the future (including R&D activities
and other activities that affect its future
operations)" rather than "as a means against theexercise of a patent right (e.g., upon filing of an
infringement lawsuit or upon receipt of awarning)." In contrast, in the case of the patent
invalidation trial system, the number of
respondents giving the former answer is smaller
than the number of respondents giving the latter●

IIP Bulletin 2013 Vol.22

answer. This suggests that many users use thepost-grant opposition system and the patent
invalidation trial system for different purposes.
As an answer to the question about reasons forhesitating to use or giving up using the systemagainst another person's patent closely related toits own business, 32.6% of respondents chose"significant procedural burdens" in the case of aquestion about the patent invalidation trial
system, while only 10.6% of respondents chosethe same answer in the case of a question about
the post-grant opposition system. This suggeststhat the users consider the post-grant opposition
system to be less burdensome than the patent
invalidation trial system in terms of procedure.
Many respondents stated that, as a result of
the abolishment of the post-grant opposition
system, "their business has been restricted due toan increase in the number of other parties’
defective patents which is caused by a decrease in
the amount of information made available after apatent grant." Meanwhile, some respondents havestated that there has been a decrease in the costs
related to the post-grant opposition system, whileother respondents have indicated that there has
been an increase in the costs aside from the costs
related to the post-grant opposition system, bysaying, for example, that "there has been an
increase in the costs and necessary man-hours
related to invalidation trials or preparing anexpert opinion in writing." Despite the cost
reduction related to the post-grant opposition
system, since other costs have increased(information submission, patent invalidation trial,
expert opinion in writing, etc.), it is difficult todetermine, based solely on the results of thedomestic questionnaire survey, whether the costs
have been reduced as a whole.
In the domestic interview survey, withrespect to the question as to whether the
post-grant opposition system should be designed
to allow further participation of the petitioner bytaking such action as submitting a document
explaining the reasons for revocation in response
to a patentee's written opinion or a request forcorrection, many respondents have answered thatthe petitioner should be given an opportunity topresent a counterargument.

3 ●

3

Pre-grant
Information
Submission
System (Article 13-2 of the Ordinancefor Enforcement of the Patent Act)

(1) The Purpose, Outline, and Use of the
System and Related Issues
The pre-grant information submission
system was established under the Ordinance for
Enforcement of the Patent Act in connection with
the introduction of the application publication
system in 1970 for the purpose of enhancing theexamination’s accuracy and efficiency.
The number of cases where the information
submission system was used has increased fromabout 4,700 in 2003 to about 6,000 the following
year (an increase of about 1,300). It has continued
increasing to about 7,600 cases in 2009 (increased
from the level in 2003 by about 2,900 cases). Thissuggests that the pre-grant information
submission system was used in lieu of the former
post-grant opposition system.
As a result of a reduction in the examination
pendency period and a rise in the number ofrequests for accelerated examination, there has
been an increase in the number of patents granted
without providing third parties with anopportunity to submit information prior to patent
grant. The number of patents granted prior to the
publication of the application has been on the rise.
(2) TheResultsoftheDomestic
Questionnaire Survey and the Domestic
Interview Survey
To the question on the use of a pre-grantinformation submission system, more users
responded positively to the use of the systemthan negatively, among the respondents. Abouthalf of the respondents stated that they did not
use the system actively because the use of thesystem would "reveal their interest in particularapplications."
Regarding the burdens imposed by the
pre-grant information submission system, many
respondents stated that "since the scope of claims
has not yet been determined prior to a patent
grant, the technical features that need to be
examined are large in number or scope."
Furthermore, as described above, in the situation
where an increasing number of patents are
granted without providing third parties with anopportunity to submit information prior to patent
grant, it was revealed that at least 35.2% of the
respondents had had experience that, although
they had wanted to submit information prior to
the grant of a patent, they had been unable to do●so before the patent grant. Some respondents ofthe domestic interview survey have also statedthat "it is problematic that we are unable tosubmit information because the timing of thepatent grant is too early or unpredictable."4

Post-grant
Information
Submission
System (Article 13-3 of the Ordinancefor Enforcement of the Patent Act)

(1) The Purpose, Outline, and Use of the
System and Related Issues
The 2003 law revision abolished thepost-grant opposition system, integrated it into
the patent invalidation trial system, and madeother modifications. Consequently, a newprovision concerning the post-grant information
submission system was added to the Ordinancefor Enforcement of the Patent Act. However,since the post-grant information submission
system was introduced, the number of cases
where the system was used has been less than
100 per year. This suggests that the system has
not been used as a substitute for the post-grant
opposition system.
(2) TheResultsoftheDomestic
Questionnaire Survey and the Domestic
Interview Survey
To the question on the frequency of use of
the post-grant information submission system,
94.3% of respondents have reported that they are
reluctant to use the system. ("We are notenthusiastic about the system and rarely use thesystem." "We do not use the system.") As areason for their reluctance, the largest
percentage of the respondents has stated, "Oursubmission of information would not necessarily
commence the procedure for patent validity
judgment and could end up in nothing." In thedomestic interview survey, many respondents
have also replied that they do not use the system
for the same reasons.
5

Development of the Current System and
Its Overall Evaluation(1) Development of the Current System andRelated Issues
Since the 2003 revision, which abolished thepost-grant opposition system, the following
issues seem to have emerged, according to thestatistics on the number of cases where anapplicant used the patent invalidation trial system,

4 ●IIP Bulletin 2013 Vol.22

the information submission system, or theaccelerated examination system described above:- Limitation on the ability of the patent
invalidation trial system to perform thefunction of the post-grant opposition system;- Emergence of problems such as thedeterioration of the function of the pre-grantinformation submission system;- Low frequency of use of the newly establishedpost-grant information submission system; and- Risk of granting an increasing number ofpatents having grounds for invalidation.
(2) TheResultsoftheDomestic
Questionnaire Survey and the Domestic
Interview Survey
In the domestic questionnaire survey, about
60% of respondents described the current system
as "satisfactory" from "the viewpoint of an
applicant (patentee)." On the other hand, only
28.7% described the system as "satisfactory" from"the viewpoint of a person against which a patentright is exercised." They have pointed out suchspecific problems as the difficulty in using theinformation submission system and the patent
invalidation trial system as a third-party
observation system and their reluctance to use
those systems as a means to eliminate
low-quality patents because it is significantly
burdensome. 67.6% of the respondents havestated that another opportunity should be given
for patent review or that the system should bereformed. This suggests that many users hope tohave such a system. The survey has revealed thatsome respondents hope to be given this newopportunity under the former opposition system.
Furthermore, regarding the question about afuture system to ensure that stable patents are
granted, the respondents' open answers include"the enhancement of examination quality."In the domestic interview survey, some
respondents have pointed out that one of themerits of the 2003 revision was "a decrease in the
man-hours for making oppositions.” However,some respondents have stated that the demerits
outweigh the merits over all. Furthermore, some
respondents have mentioned that the demerits
are that "we have to file a labor-intensive
invalidation trial in some cases," that “we have tocircumvent a patent unless we are able to file an
opposition to eliminate it," and that "we consider
it burdensome to continue monitoring activities
by using data on patent invalidation."●

IIP Bulletin 2013 Vol.22

Ⅲ Current Systems to Ensure that
Stable Patents Are Granted in
Other Countries
1

United States

In the United States, since around 2003, it
has been reported that patents that are likely to
be invalid or contain overly broad claims, orotherwise questionable ones ("questionablepatents") would hinder innovation, or that
low-quality patents have been increasing
litigation costs.
In response to the criticism expressed inthese reports, the U.S. Congress started
discussing the amendment of the U.S. Patent
Laws in 2005. The amendment submitted to the112th Congress in 2011 was passed by Congress
after several modifications (the name was alsochanged to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act(AIA)).
The overseas interview survey revealed thata new review system (Post Grant Review andInter Partes Review) introduced under the AIA is
expected to reduce overall social costs as well asusers' burdens because it provides a lessexpensive way of invalidating patents than the
one provided by judicial proceedings. The newreview system would shorten disputes overpatent validity and reduce the burdens on courts,
although the introduction of the review system
would increase burdens on the USPTO.
2

Germany

Germany has two types of post-grant patents
review system: the opposition system specified in
Article 59 of the German Patent Act and thepatent invalidation proceedings specified in
Article 81 of the German Patent Act. In
comparison with the current Japanese system,
the German Patent Act is different in that it has asystem similar to the Japanese opposition system,
which was in effect prior to the 2003 revision.
According to these systems, once the period
during which an opposition can be made has
passed, any person seeking invalidation of apatent is required to file a lawsuit with the court,
rather than filing a trial with the patent office.
3

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has two types ofpost-grant patents review system, either of whicha petitioner can choose: the procedure for5 ●revocation by the Comptroller of the UKIntellectual Property Office (IPO) specified in
Section 72 of the UK Patent Act and the judicial
revocation proceedings. Furthermore, in certain
cases, such person may use the system of ex
officio revocation by the Comptroller of the UK
IPO (Section 73(1) of the UK Patent Act). In
comparison with the current Japanese system,
the UK Patent Act is different in that it offers an
option of choosing judicial proceedings aside fromthe option of following the procedure with the
IPO and also in that the Comptroller of the UK
IPO is permitted to revoke a patent ex officio.
4

Europe (the European Patent Convention)

The European Patent Convention specifies
an opposition system in Article 99 of theEuropean Patent Convention as a review systemfor patents granted by the European Patent Office(EPO) under said Convention.
5

South Korea

Under the South Korean Patent Act that wasin effect prior to the 2006 revision, two systems
were established as post-grant patent review
systems: the opposition system, which permitted
the filing of an opposition only during a certain
period of time after the patent registration, andthe invalidation trial system. However, since the2006 revision, the opposition system has been
integrated with the invalidation trial system. The
legal revisions in South Korea and Japan are
similar in that each country made a legal revision
to integrate the former opposition system with
the invalidation trial system. However, the South
Korean's invalidation trial system, which has been
integrated with the opposition system, is different
from the Japanese invalidation trial system interms of the criteria for applicants.
6

China

As a post-grant patent review system, China
has an invalidation declaration request system,
which permits any person who detects a patent
granted in violation of any provision of theChinese Patent Law to request that the SIPO's
Patent Reexamination Board declare the patent
invalid. In the past, China used to have a system,
which is similar to the Japanese former post-grant
opposition system, that permitted any person to
file a request for revocation of a patent rightwithin six months from the patent publication●

date. This system was abolished in the second
revision of the Patent Law in 2001.

Ⅳ Academic
Papersonthe
Systems to Ensure the Grant of
Stable Patents Written from an
Economic Perspective
A paper by Mark A. Lemley (2001) examined
patent stability, the opposition system and theinvalidation trial system from an economic
perspective. He argues that the civil action
challenging the validity of the patent is more
efficient than the patent examination system in
eliminating defective patents. In answer toLemley’s argument that the civil action should be
the sole means of elimination, critics pointed outthat an civil action challenging the validity of thepatent is not filed for an economically valuablepatent in some cases and that a time-consuming
invalidation trial would hinder early patent grants
and prevent companies from investing in their
R&D activities and business activities. Thissuggests that, theoretically, it would be beneficial
to establish a system that, unlike the patentexamination system, eliminates defective patents
with a focus on economically valuable patents andthat, unlike the patent invalidation lawsuit system,
does not impose significant monetary burdens
and ensures early patent grants.
On the other hand, in the United States,
Graham and Harhoff (2006) have quantitatively
measured the economic effect of introducing the
opposition system specified in the European
Patent Convention, compared the benefit andcosts of filing oppositions, and concluded that thebenefits outweigh the costs. Furthermore, theresearch conducted by Nakamura, Maho, andNagaoka (2010) (2011) has revealed that theJapanese opposition system has the effect ofeliminating defective patents and that theinvalidation trial system, which does not preserveanonymity, would not substitute the opposition
system.

Ⅴ Future System to Ensure that
Stable Patents Are Granted
1

Roles of the Invalidation Trial System

While the current patent invalidation trial
system is playing a role in solving disputes
between the parties concerned, since the systemdoes not preserve anonymity and imposessignificant procedural burdens, it is not playing a
6 ●IIP Bulletin 2013 Vol.22

sufficient role in enhancing the reliability ofpatents, regardless of the existence of disputes
between the parties. However, it used to bethought that such a role should be played by theformer post-grant opposition system.
2

Necessity for the Establishment of a
System that Allows Easy and Early
Post-grant Review of Patent Validity(1) Necessity for the Establishment of a
System that Allows Easy and Early
Post-grant Review of Patent Validity
There are two purposes for establishing asystem that allows easy and early post-grant
review of patent validity: to improve theefficiency of corporate activities and to reducesocial costs.
(2) Effects on the Corporate Activities as a
Result of the Introduction of a Systemthat Allows Easy and Early Post-grant
Review of Patent Validity
If a system similar to the former post-grant
opposition system is introduced, it is expected,that the following effects would be brought about,according to the results of this research study:
Effect 1: A reduction in the businessrestrictions that have been tightened by anincrease in the number of other companies'
patents having grounds for invalidation.
Effect 2: Promotion of investment indevelopment activities as a result of an increasein the validity of its own patent after the
expiration of a review period.
Effect 3: The use of the newly introduced
system would require additional labor and costs.
Furthermore, additional labor and costs are also
required to handle the requests filed under the
newly introduced system.
Regarding Effect 3, while the amount ofadditional labor and costs varies depending on thetype of system, a certain amount of additional
labor and costs would be inevitable. On the other
hand, regarding Effect 1 and Effect 2, thesignificance of effects would vary depending on
how frequently each company uses the newly
introduced system. However, since the domestic
questionnaire survey has confirmed thesignificance of those effects, the newly introduced
system is expected to have positive effects oncompanies as a whole. In both the domestic
questionnaire survey and the domestic interview
survey, many respondents supported the idea ofcreating an opportunity for easy and early patent●

IIP Bulletin 2013 Vol.22

review.
(3) Increase or Decrease of Social Costs asa Result of the Introduction of a Systemthat Allows Easy and Early Post-grant
Review of Patent Validity
Academic papers written from a theoreticalperspective have suggested that the social costs
would be reduced in the following respects as aresult of the introduction of a system, like theformer post-grant opposition system, whichallows early post-grant patent review:- A reduction in business restrictions imposed byinvalid patents; and- Enhancement of the patent's function ofpromoting investment as a result of the early
patent grants.
There is an academic paper (Graham andHarhoff (2006)) written from an empiricalperspective, arguing that, if the United States
introduces the opposition system specified in theEuropean Patent Convention, the benefit of the
opposition system would outweigh the costs.
Another paper (Nakamura, Maho, and Nagaoka(2010) (2011)) argues that the invalidation trial
system, which imposes significant monetaryburdens and does not preserve anonymity, would
not substitute the opposition system.
Based on the aforementioned research, thesocial costs are expected to be reduced as a resultof the establishment of a system designed toallow easy post-grant review of patent validity.
3

Future System to Ensure that Stable
Patents Are Granted

The establishment of a system similar to theformer post-grant opposition system is expected
to bring about the following effects in connection
with other systems.
First, from the perspective of the pre-grantinformation submission system whose function is
expected to deteriorate as a result of an increasein the examination’s speed and in the use of theaccelerated examination system, the introductionof a new system would, in a sense, supplement
thedeteriorating
pre-grant
information
submission system. It would allow a person who
has failed to submit information prior to a patent
grant to use the newly established system, which
is similar to the post-grant opposition system, andto eliminate a patent that should not have been
granted in the first place due to the lack ofpatentability.
The second comes from the perspective of
7 ●the post-grant information submission system,
which users consider useless in that the
post-grant submission of information would notprompt patent validity re-examination. The
introduction of a new system similar to theformer post-grant opposition system would
eliminate this problem and play a role in solving
issues related to the post-grant information
submission system.
While the patent invalidation trial system is
not sufficiently substituting the former post-grant
opposition system due to such reasons as "the useof the system would impose significant procedural
burdens" and "the system does not preserveanonymity," the introduction of this new system
would supplement the insufficient functions of thecurrent patent system and enhance patent quality
and the reliability of the patent system.
In the surveys conducted in connection withthis research study, many respondents haverequested establishment of the following
systems:- A system that is less burdensome topetitioners in comparison with the invalidation
trial system;- A system that permits petitioners to submit
opinions in response to the corrections andcounter arguments presented by patentees;and- A system that preserves the anonymity ofpetitioners from patentees.
The newly established system should bedesigned to reduce burdens on patentees inconsideration of the above-listed points.
It should be noted that, in the domestic
questionnaire survey, the domestic interview
survey, and committee meetings, we have heard
many people say that the discussions on theestablishment of a system to ensure that stablepatents are granted should cover not only thesystem used in the post-grant phase but also thesystem and practices designed to enhance
examination quality in the pre-grant phase. This
indicates that many people hope to see an
improvement in examination quality as well as
the establishment of a system designed to allow
easy and early post-grant review of patentvalidity.
As described above, this research study has
examined the use of the current patent
invalidation trial system, the pre-grant andpost-grant information submission systems, theformer post-grant opposition system, and theissues faced by users, and has also analyzed thecorresponding systems in other countries in●order to assess the necessity for the creation ofan opportunity for post-grant patent validity
review and the possible effects thereof. I hopethat the results of this research study willcontribute to the discussions on how to design asystem to ensure that stable patents are grantedin the future.
(Researcher: Kosuke TAKAHASHI)

8 ●IIP Bulletin 2013 Vol.22