Home > News & Topics > The trial against examiner’s decision of rejection demanded by the attorney who is entrusted by all the joint owners of the right to obtain a patent is apparently for all the joint owners even if only one name
The trial against examiner’s decision of rejection demanded by the attorney who is entrusted by all the joint owners of the right to obtain a patent is apparently for all the joint owners even if only one name
IP News
2011.10.12
IP Court Case Summary:H22 (gyoke) 10363:
On May 30, 2011, the Intellectual Property High Court (IP High Court) reversed JPO board of appeal’s decision that rejected the demand for trial because only one name is written in the written demand for trial.
In this case, three people who have the right to obtain a patent entrusted the same patent administrator about the procedure of the patent application. After the examiner’s final rejection, the patent administrator demanded for the trial. However, only one name of one company was described as demandant in written demand for trial.
JPO board of appeal decided that this demand is illegal, and that an amendment should not be allowed. Then, this demand for trial was not approved.
The demandants who are joint owners of the right to obtain a patent insisted that patent administrator demanded for trial for all the joint owners, and the JPO board of appeal’s decision should be cancelled.
IP High Court mentioned that when written demand for trial is submitted by the patent administrator entrusted by all the joint owners, it is deemed to be “demanded by all the people of joint owners”. It should not be determined only by the description of the name in written demand for trial. It should be determined generally by considering all the information which the JPO can grasp from all the purposes of the demand and the application.
In this case, only one name of one company is written in the description of the written demand for trial, all the name of other demandants are not written, but it is apparent to patent administrator that there is intention to demand for trial for all the demandants. Moreover, it is apparent that the JPO can fully recognize the intention.
As a conclusion, it was determined that the JPO board of appeal’s decision that rejected the demand for trial without invitation to amendment was illegal.