The whole procedure from filing to registration is shown in the flow chart below.
In order to make design right applications more user friendly and enforceable with regard to the modern use of designs in everyday life, significant reforms of the design law field in Japan had been enacted over the years.
Firstly, in order to harmonize with design laws of the IP 5 offices, the JP design law was revised to provide for a grace period that was extended from six months to one year and the examination guidelines were relaxed to allow for more lenience in the requirements for drawings in design applications. In particular, the mandatory 6 separate views from all perspectives of the article subject to the examination was relaxed. Nowadays, instead of said 6 views a spatial image or only one perspective view maybe sufficient, if it fully identifies the design of the article..
Together with the above reforms of formal requirements an expansion in the scope of protection was introduced that decouples the design for which a design right is sought from the article on which is indicated. This means that for designs of Graphical User Interfaces (“GUI”) that said GUI images which not stored or indicated on an article such as a display of an electronic device (e.g. images provided via the Internet or stored in a cloud) come under the scope of protection. Furthermore, images projected onto non-display devices (e.g. roads or walls) are now also within the scope of protection. However, it should still be noted that protection will not be provided to images which have no functional relationship to the article of the design, such as paintings, characters, etc. which are for aesthetic purposes only.
Moreover, the exclusion from exterior and interior of buildings from the scope of protection was abolished. This means, that in addition to prefabricated houses, all designs related to real estate and immovable property from exterior design of buildings (architectural designs) to interior designs of shops, restaurants and offices, etc. (interior design) now fall under the definition of an “article” with regard to the scope of protection of a design right.
Furthermore, with regard to related designs, the Japanese design law provided a unique system for protecting a group of designs related to each other in the name of a “related design,” as an exception for “double patenting”. However, in particular for auto makers and/or auto part makers which filed for face lifts of established models those unique system turned out to be insufficient with regard to long model-cycles. The dilemma was that regarding the term for filing a related design application that was limited to the publication date for the registration of the principal design, the design right of the older model as most likely stipulated prior art which was very difficult to overcome, if the established model types or brand image should be closely maintained from one product cycle to another. In general, as brand awareness became paramount for consumers, more companies have been establishing their brands by continuously using consistent design concepts, and there have been some cases where the period until the registration of the publication of the principal design was not sufficient to achieve adequate protection.
Thus, as a remedy for auto industry, and to satisfy the trend of continues use due to brand awareness in general, such period has been extended to within ten years from the filing date of the principal design, and designs which are similar only to the related design (not just to the principal design) have become protectable.
Moreover, for applicants which were strongly dependent or used to the European style multiple designs applications, said bundle design applications under the previous Japanese design law were a very costly endeavor which implied the cumbersome elections of only some main designs from the plurality of multiple designs from the bundle application, because the Japanese design law required that one application contains only one design (embodiment). In other words, there was no equivalent to European style multiple designs application comprising a bundle of embodiments and it was necessary separate applications for each embodiment.
Under the revised Japanese design law, this burdensome obstacle was abolished and in particular for foreign applicants which are used to multiple designs applications to cover their design right, it is no longer necessary to select one or more of their designsif multiple designs are collectively contained in one application. Instead, the JPO will conduct an examination on each of the designs in the application and issue a design registration for each registrable design, which provides for a more harmonized scope of design right portfolios of foreign applicants.
With regard to the harmonization, the revised Japanese design law also steps away from the traditional Japanese design article classification list towards the Locarno classification, whereas other substantial aspects such as clarification of the level of creativity, introduction of a partial design concept for a set of articles, the expansion of the design law to cover enforcement of design rights which come under indirect infringement, expansion of remedy procedures, and the review of the methods for presuming damage benefit the applicants to match nowadays (online and high street) business environments .
With regard to the revised fundamental definition of a registerable design in Japan, the applicant of a design application at the JPO must mind the basic definition of a registerable design to be a matter which creates an aesthetic impression through the eye such as the followings:
(i) a shape, patterns or colors, or any combination thereof, of an article (including a part of an article);
(ii) a shape and the like of an architectural structure (including a part of an architectural structure), whereas building designs became registrable subject matter. Thus, with the revision of 2019, the types of protectable designs include not only the exterior designs of buildings but also the interior designs of shops, restaurants and offices, etc.
(iii) a graphical image (including a part of a graphical image that is exclusively used for operation of a machine or displayed as a result of performing functions of the machine), whereas graphical images which are not pre-installed (e.g., images provided through the Internet) became protectable designs. This also includes images projected onto non-display devices (e.g., roads or walls) have also become protectable. In order words, the graphical image is virtually decoupled from the article, which moreover allows images displayed by an operating system of a computer to be registerable image. However, it should be noted that protection is not yet provided to images which have no functional relationship to the article of the design, such as paintings, characters, etc. for aesthetic purposes only.The above perquisites for the scope of the protection further need to satisfy the following requirements:
(i) The design matter must be a form or configuration of an article, whereas an article is defined to be tangible entity which can be distributed in a market. This said, even though the Japanese design law provides for a partial design registration system which permits design registration for a part of an article, it is mandatory to specify the form or configuration of an article which includes the part for which the design right is sought for.
(ii) The design matter must be recognizable by the eye, which in general implies that the article should be recognizable by the human eye, which may be excludes UV- and infrared bands as well as nanostructures.
(iii) The design matter has to produce a visual aesthetic impression, whereas the definition of a visual aesthetic impression is very broad and in practice there is no lack of aesthetic impression if the above requirements are fulfilled.In addition, the applicant of a design should mind the following criteria for prior art that stand against a registration in Japan. Prior publication or public knowledge is present if: (i) in Japan or any other country, prior to the filing of the application, a design in the application is publicly known, or described in a publication distributed or made available to the public through electric telecommunication lines.
(ii) a design similar to the design of the aforementioned in (i); or (iii) a design that could be easily created by a person who has ordinary skill in the art to which the design pertains, on the basis of publicly known design features in Japan or any other country, prior to the filing of the application.However, even if a design has been publicly known before filing in Japan, in the following cases, the design is exceptionally deemed to be kept secret and can be filed.
(i) In the case where the act which caused the design to be publicly known was performed by a person who is entitled to file the design application: or (ii) In the case where the act which caused the design to be publicly known was performed against the intention of the person who is entitled to file the design application.
An applicant who seeks the exceptional handling explained above has to file the application within one year from the date when the design was publicly known, whereas the term was extended from six months to one year under the 2018 Japanese Design Law revision.
In addition to the case of exceptional handling (i) of a national design registration, the applicant has to submit a document which explains why and how the design was publicly known within 30 days from the filing date, whereas with regard to similar designs and designs easily created by a person skilled in the art to which the design pertains, on the basis of publicly known design features that are similar, the term “similarity” is defined that (i) an article is the same or similar and the design feature is similar; or (ii) the article is similar and the design feature is the same, and wherein “similarity” is determined as a whole, based on the aesthetic impressions extracted by individually assessing a common part or different part between two designs to be compared, from the viewpoint of a consumer (including a dealer).
Note: The term for exceptional handling of a national design application should never be confused with supporting documents for priority claiming and/or for seeking privileged treatment in the case of lack of novelty with regard to Hague Agreement concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, hereafter “Hague system users”.
For Hague system users designating Japan the submission deadlines for priority documents and documents for seeking privileged treatment in the case of lack of novelty are as follows:
(a) A priority document must be submitted to the JPO within 3 months from the date of international publication.
(b) A document for seeking privileged treatment in the case of lack of novelty by stating the fact that the subject design has been disclosed within 6 months before the actual filing date must be submitted to the JPO within 30 days from the date of international publication.
In order to meet the formal requirements for filing a design application in Japan, a written request which includes the following information has to the filed at the JPO:
(i) The name of the article or intended use of architectural/interior structure, graphical image or projected or displayed design, whereas the name of the article or the intended use of the designmust be included in the written request. Here, the applicant should be aware that the name or the intended use should be carefully chosen and decided upon matching it to the Locarno classification because the name or the intended use sometimes plays a significant role in interpreting the scope of the design right.
(ii) The explanation of the article or intended use, whereas though the submission of the explanation of the article or the intended use is not mandatory, an explanation of the article or the intended use maybe beneficial to clarify of the scope of the design right and to avoid any questions about new matter in the future. Further, when the article or the architectural structure itself is not known in Japan, information about the article or the architectural structure such as material, size, use, function etc., maybe be explained for the above reason.
(iii) The explanation of the design, whereas the functional relation to the article or a change in the configuration of the article, the architectural structure or the graphical image is beyond expectation. For the latter, it is preferable that the change of the configuration before and after its movement be explained with explanatory drawings. Further, when it is not obvious or self-evident that the entire or a part of the article, the architectural structure, or the graphical image is transparent, that should be explained. When the article is lengthy, for example, a rope or a rail, that should be explained. In the case of a partial design application, the part for which the registration is sought is to be identified and explained.
(iv) Drawings of the design (photographs, computer graphic) Although revised Design Examination Guidelines of 2019 do not require the drawings from all six directions as far as one or more submitted views suitably identify the design, it is sometime advisable to additionally provide a set of drawings from one or more of six directions i.e. front view, rear view, left side view, right side view, plan view and bottom view, in particular if a spatial view does not produce all design features. This said, depending on the design, a perspective view, sectional view or partial enlarged view, etc. would help the Examiner to quickly and accurately understand the design.
In addition, in case of a partial design application, the part for which a registration as a partial design right is sought has to be clearly distinguished and from other parts in a diagrammatical manner, i.e. as two separate interacting spatial views or the like.
In case a design right is sought for a matter which comprises a set of articles, a set of drawings is required for each article, architectural structure, or graphical image is required. If the article, architectural structure, or graphical image includes a movable part, and the movement is not duly expected, drawings showing the change of the configuration of the article, architectural structure, or graphical image before and after the movement should be submitted.
(v) If the applicant has already filed an earlier design application outside of Japan, the priority thereof must be claimed at the time of filing the design application and the priority document has to be submitted within three months from the filing date. If the priority document is not filed within three months from the filing date, the priority claim will not be considered in the examination. For national design application in Japan, the applicant can claim priority of a national or regional application filed earlier under the Paris Convention or for any member state of the hague agreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs. Notwithstanding that there was substantial harmonization with regard to Hague system users in the Japanese Design law, applicants which are registering a national design at the JPO based on a foreign design application claiming priority based on a U.S. design patent application may still have to keep the following essentials with regard to drawings and related designs in mind:
(A) Despite a set of drawings from six directions is no longer required as far as one or more submitted views suitably identify the design, it is essential to provide additional sectional view(s) if the overall appearance of a design to be protected cannot be specified by only the views in the U.S. design patent application. In particular, if there are hidden lines or design features such as recesses or the like which cannot be seen with the naked eye.
(B) In case the functional relation between design and article is not clear or an article, to which a design relates, can change its shape in use or a portion of the article is releasable or deployed in use, it may be necessary to submit an explanation of design, i.e. a view showing the article in its changed state. This said, if an article, to which a design relates, comprises a body with a removable part, a view of the part and a complementary view of the body may have to be filed to sufficiently define the design.Furthermore, the applicant should be aware that all necessary views (as exemplified in above (A) and (B)) should be submitted upon the filing of a design application, because a late submission of those drawings may be not be allowed at a later stage of the proceedings.
(C) Moreover, in case no explanation of the article is provided, it might be difficult for the JP Examiner to understand the scope of the function of the article and/or how to use it. In particular, if the design relates to an article which has not yet been known, providing such functional explanation, etc. in an explanation of article that clarifies its use with regard to its working. Hence, for every design that is difficult to precisely match a category in an existing classification system such as the Locarno classification, a explanation of article may be a beneficial for the applicant.
(D) In case the earlier U.S. application comprises more than one design, i.e. various embodiments, said multiple designs can be subject to a (single) design application at the JPO. However, the applicant should be aware that though multiple designs in a single design application are no longer prohibited under the Japanese design law since 2019, and thus, a single design application can be filed even if the earlier U.S. application includes therein more than one design (embodiments), the explanation of article as highlighted in (C) maybe useful to explain the overall design features to rule out any question of new matter etc. with regard to the (D) or for any future filings of so-called related designs.
(E) With regard to the grace period for loss of novelty, namely for a period in that a design has already been publicly known before the earlier U.S. application is been filed. The applicant can remedy such loss of novelty for a Japanese design application, if it is filed within one year from the date on which the design was first publicly known, while claiming priority based on the earlier U.S. application. In other words, there is a reach through of the grace period for loss of novelty for the earlier U.S. application.In case of applicants which are registering a national design at the JPO claiming a priority based on registered Community Design (RCD) applications, the above points (A) to (E) apply, respectively. Moreover, in particular with regard to the strong focus of designs in the automotive engineering related industry the following points may have to be particularly considered:
RCD application are often filed with drawings comprising either color photographs or colored computer images. Nevertheless, the applicant of such RCD application may provide with drawings without colors for the Japanese design application in order to obtain the broadest scope possible.In addition, the applicant may provide a priority certificate to a Japanese patent attorney before the filing of a Japanese design application and provides the drawings, which are attached to the priority certificate, in black and white.
In any case, if an RCD application was filed with color drawings or photographs, the applicant should confirm the color requirement with the agent before the filing of a Japanese design application or change it to black and white in order to avoid a “red sports car”- application.
Note:Though a power of attorney is not required for filing the application, it is mandatory for filing any formal recordal procedures to the registration such as abandonment, withdrawal, conversion of application or filing for an appeal against the substantial examination. Therefore, we recommend to provide us with a power of attorney at the time of filing the design application in Japan.
During the examination procedures for obtaining a design right, the design application is subjected to a formality examination and then substantive examination, whereas the filing of an examination request is not necessary.
The time period between the application request to the first Office Action is approx. 6 to 9 months from the filing date. Accelerated examination is available if the application meets specified requirements e.g., the application has a parallel or earlier foreign application. If the accelerated examination was requested successfully the JPO issues the first office action within approx. 2 months from the date of request.
Pursuant to the decision of the JPO whether the first office action is a decision of registration or a notice of reasons for rejection, the average duration from the filing date to the registration of a design right is varying as set out above. In case the examiner issues a decision of rejection, the applicant can file an appeal trial against the decision at the JPO. The above flow chart shows the procedures from the filing to registration of a design application at the JPO.
The typical and therefore avoidable reasons for rejection are follows:
1. The design lacks novelty. A proper research for similar designs and awareness of legal terms with regard to the publication and priority claims is paramount to avoid this point.
2. The design lacks creativity. In particular if the design is a related design. This was a major setback for similar designs in model changes, but a remedy thereto was introduced with the novel related design rules in the revised design law of 2019.
3. The application lacks unity of design. A lack of unity of design rejection maybe issued if there is doubt on the subject matter of the design. It is likely, that this reason may be notified if the design application was filed in absence of both, an explanation of design and an explanation of article or its functional features, respectively.
4. The application does not comply with the first-to-file rules due to accidental or unauthorized publication etc. outside the grace period for novelty loss.
5. The application of partial design is identical or similar to a part or the whole design disclosed in another (earlier) application, but its publication in the Gazette was published after the application of the partial design.
A written argument and amendment can be filed against a notice of reasons for refusal within 3 months of the dispatch date of said notice.
In case that the applicant receives a Notice of reasons for refusal which states that the design is similar to an earlier design of an application that the applicant filed previously, the applicant with regard to the related design system now has to allies to remedy. Firstly, he may file an argument contending that the designs are not similar. However, since an Examiner’s judgment of similarity is subjective, it is generally difficult to overcome the judgment by the Examiner simply by filing a written argument. Secondly, in accordance to the revised design law it maybe more beneficial to amend the application into a related design application, which allows the applicant to obtain a series of design rights on similar designs, where if filed separately, later applications are rejected on the basis of similarity.
In case of applications filed under the related design system, the applications are not cited against one another, and the above reasons for rejection is deemed be overcome by the amendment. Thus, the applicant has the opportunity to file one or more applications for the related designs within 10 years from the application date of the principal design and the expiration date of the design rights for the related designs will be within 25 years from the application date of the principal design.
The opportunity to proceed with related designs for multiple products which are designed based on a consistent concept, a “group design,” is an effective measure to maintain a long-term brand-focused market trend. Moreover, it offers the applicant the possibility for a registration for designs similar not only to the related design but also for evolving designs over the years can be protected.
In case the Written Argument and Amendment cannot convince the primary Examiner, a Decision of Refusal is issued and the design application was rejected in the first instance examination proceedings.
If the written argument and amendment cannot convince the primary examiner, the examiner will issue a notice of the decision of refusal and reject the design application in the first instance examination proceedings. If the applicant is not satisfied with the examiner’s findings, an appeal trial against the decision of refusal can be filed within 4 months after the dispatch date of the notice of the decision. The appeal trial is headed by board of appeal examiners (3 to 5 senior examiners), and if the board of appeal decides that the reasons for refusal were resolved, an appeal decision to register the design is issued.
In case the reasons could not be resolved, an appeal the decision of refusal is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. The second instance decision of the board of appeal is commenced at the JPO and can be further appealed at the Tokyo IP High Court.
Although it is unlikely that the design is rejected due to lack of creativity, other reasons for refusal are manifold and if not properly addressed, a decision of refusal is issued by the primary examiner.
An appeal trial against a decision of refusal can be filed within 4 months after the issuance date of the decision. The appeal trial against the decision of refusal is headed by board of appeal examiners which comprises of three or five appeal examiners, and if the board of appeal decides that the reasons for refusal were resolved, an appeal decision to register a design is issued. In case the reasons could not have been resolved, an appeal decision of refusal is issued.This second instance decision of the board of appeal is commenced at the JPO and can be further appealed.
Higher instance appeal proceedings against the JPO appeal decision are possible at the IP High Court and finally at the Supreme Court. Those higher instance proceedings are inter partes and need the presence of an attorney-at-law in addition to patent attorney.
With regard to the recordal of registrations during and after grant etc., it is also necessary to understand the limitations that are involved when filing a related design.
In particular the applicant should be aware that related designs cannot be separated after registration, and therefore, they must be transferred together if they are assigned from one design right proprietor to another. In order words, all design rights comprising the evolution of the design from the principle design to the last related design needsto be assigned.
Furthermore, the applicant should be aware that if the examiner deems the applications filed as related designs not to be similar to one another, an office action is going to issued rejecting said shortcomings. In this case, the applicant is entitled to amend the related design applications to an independent application, if feasible.
Since there is no remedy for infringement against a pending design application, the design has to registered before the design right can be enforced against the alleged infringer. Unfortunately, the Japanese Design Law does not provide for an intermediate publication or provision for provisional protection.
Thus, it is maybe beneficial for the applicant to defer the publication of design application by applying the so-called secret design system. This secret design system can be applied before or after the issuance of a decision for registration. If a deferment of publication at the time of filing the design application is necessary for immediate enforcement, a request for deferment must be attached to the application and the official fees have to be paid, respectively. Alternatively, the applicant can defer the publication after the registration of the design right. This means, after paying the registration fee, the applicant can file an official request for deferment of the publication. Please note that the deferment cannot exceed 3 years from the date of registration.
Nevertheless, the design right proprietor of a secret registered design right can warn an alleged infringer. This warning should include a copy of the registered design certificate authenticated by the JPO. The remedies for an infringement against a registered design are an injunction, a compensation for monetary damages and an order for apology in print media, such as newspapers and magazines.
Once the design application has been registered, the term of protection of the design right is 25 years from its the application date. The term of protection is subject to the payment of annual annuity fees.
The term of protection of a related design right lapses 25 years from the application date of the principal design. If principal design registration lapsed due to failure to timely pay the annual annuity fees, there is no detrimental effect to the related design right and if the payment of annuity fees of the related design right is paid timely, its term of protection remains 25 years from the application date of the principal design.
An invalidation against the registered design right can be filed with the board of appeal at the JPO or maybe examined during a civil court trial in case of an infringement trial. he invalidation trial is an inter-parte proceeding. The collegial body of the board of appeal is similar to the design appeal trial proceedings. The board of appeal will issue a decision whether to maintain or invalidate the design right, respectively.
The reasons for invalidation may relates to a younger design right, but even if no younger design right existed, prior use maybe claimed by a demandant of an invalidation trial. This said, although there is no invalidation trial against a younger design right, the working of the design right can take an unfortunate turn, if the design right proprietor becomes aware that the registered design right conflicts with third party copyright. The Japanese Design Law prohibits a design right proprietor from commercially manufacturing or selling third party copyrighted work if said copyright has seniority. If the design proprietor wishes to work said copyright, permission from the copyright proprietor must be obtained. In particular, the applicant/proprietor should be on the lookout when registering a design in the field of the extensions of design right, i.e. software related GUI images, icons or -in general- any digital image which is depicted by functional relation with the physical article, but decoupled from physical article. Here, the infringement of third-party copyright becomes more likely than in the field of conventional industrial design in former scope and maybe leads to stalemate with a competitor since remedies are limited.
With regard to the remedies in order maintain the freedom of working of the registered design, if it includes a third-party copyright or a prior registered design, there are only three options: to obtain a license from the design proprietor, to change or modify the design or to stop working the design.
Note:If you fortunately can modify the design to come under the related design system, you may shift the protection timing and gain seniority over the conflicting intellectual property right. This motion towards the principle design makes it more difficult for the opponent to enforce the copyright or the conflicting design right against the seniority of the principle design.
The invalidation trial takes approx. 12 – 16 months.
During the trial period oral hearings are scheduled in a approx. 3 months rhythm until the court/board of appeal examiners reaches a decision. Before each oral hearing preparatory documents are exchanged between the parties and the court/board of appeal examiners.
Amendments to the design right after grant is possible. In general, after a pending design application was registered and the registration fees were paid, the design right proprietor can slightly modify the design so as to tailor to the latest fashion or circumvent claims of third parties. This also holds for a design preferentially modified to become a similar design related to a registered design. The time limit for making such modification only when it is filed as a related design within 10 years from the application date of the principle design application.
Moreover, if a competitor has a design registration, but the prospective working party has prior art possibly relevant to the competitor’s registered design, then it is possible to invalidate the design registration. At that time the working party can file an invalidation trial with the board of appeal at the JPO, where the prior art will prove the lack of novelty of the design.
In case of an invalidation trial in response to unjustified claims of infringement, the prior use of the design is independent from the entity who used it in order to file for invalidation trial based thereon. For example, if a competitor has a registered design similar to a prospective seller’s product, but the seller’s design was once placed on the market by another distributor in Japan, the seller qualifies for any advantages due to the prior use, because the seller may assert a prior use of the design right in an invalidation trial.
On the other side, neither the seller nor the competitor can force a design proprietor to provide a compulsory license or the invalidation thereof due to non-working if a registered design has not been used in Japan for a long time. The Japanese design law does not provide for compulsory licensing or invalidation due to non-working.
In case that an article is expected to be marketed has been found to comprise a third-party registered design, a declaratory judgment action can be filed in order to stop the market entry.Alternatively, any person can file an official request to JPO to provide an opinion as to whether the product falls within the scope of a third-party registered design right. If the such official request is filed with the JPO, a collegial body of three JPO examiners compares the requester’s design with the registered design right at issue. The fees are lower than the those of a declaratory judgment action, and the time to obtain a decision is shorter than the duration of a judicial declaratory judgment action at court. However, the so-called “Hantei” system at JPO is accepted as an “administrative judgment” but not enforceable or appealable. Thus, although a judicial judge may respect a “Hantei” as an officially recognized opinion it does not have a prohibitive effect. Nevertheless, it maybe proves useful to reach an amicable out of court solution.
Licensing of a designThe applicant should be aware that is not possible separate the ownership of related designs of two or mutually similar designs. In case of license or assignment the two or more design rights must be entirely licensed or assigned to the same person.
With regard to licenses this has the implication, that there are two types of licenses which a design proprietor use. Firstly, a non-exclusive license, which does not have to be registered with the JPO. Secondly, an exclusive license that has to be registered at the JPO due to its exclusivity to the licensee. In this case, if the licensor owns two mutually similar design rights to a Principal design and its Related design, he or she must grant an exclusive license at the same time to one licensee covering the two design rights.
After 2 to 3 oral hearings a decision of decision for Invalidation of a registered design will be issued by the court/board of appeal examiners.
The decision either upholds the registration of the design and the maintains the rights of the design proprietor or nullifies said registration and the rights.
Once a decision to invalidate a registration has become final, in principle, the design right is retroactively deemed never to have existed.
f the design right proprietor or the opponent is dissatisfied with the decision of the board of appeal examiners at the JPO or judge of the civil district court, the design right proprietor or the demandant of the failed invalidation motion may file a court trial against the invalidation trial decision at the Tokyo Intellectual Property High Court within 120 days of the issuance date of the opposition decision. This term cannot be extended.
Note:In case of court trial against the invalidation trail decision issued by the JPO, the foreign appellant needs to be represented by an attorney at law, and a power of attorney together with notarized company register of the appellants data (in case of company) must be filed at the time of filing the request for trail at Tokyo Intellectual Property High Court.
The Supreme Court of Japan is the last remedy of the parties of law suit at the Tokyo Intellectual Property High Court are dissatisfied with the decision of appeal court judges.
