Intellectual Property (Litigation/Enforcement)

Chemistry: The client is a European manufacturer of chemical products (patent owner/plaintiff) and owns its patent concerning dental restoration material.  The client filed a patent infringement litigation against a Japanese dental material manufacturer (defendant).  We also defended the client in the patent invalidation proceedings at Japan Patent Office and its appeal proceedings at the Tokyo High Court filed by the defendant.  JPO and Tokyo High Court upheld the validity of the patent, but the court did not approve the infringement for the reason that one of constituent elements of the patent claim is not satisfied.

Telecommunication: The client owns patents related to control channel allocation and decoding system in respect of LTE network systems internationally (including Japan). This patent is not regarded as a Standard Essential Patent (SEP), but most telecommunication companies are believed to use the same or similar technology as this patent for their control channel allocation in LTE system.  One telecommunication company challenged the validity of this patent at Japan Patent Office, and we represented the client.  JPO declared invalidity of this patent, and the client appealed to the IP High Court.  The issue is whether the amendment to the claims requested in the patent invalidation proceedings should be allowed.  The IP High Court rejected our appeal.

Machinery: The client is an affiliate of a Japanese semi-conductor manufacturer (patent owner/plaintiff) and owns its patent concerning machinery used for manufacturing semiconductor chips.  The client filed a patent infringement litigation seeking injunction of sale of machines and compensation for damages against a competing manufacturer (defendant).  There is no room for the defendant to deny that the defendant’s product satisfies all constituent elements of the patent claim, and the issue was whether the patent should be invalidated or not.  The Japan Patent Office dismissed the patent invalidation trial filed by the defendant, and the defendant appealed to the High Court.  In the infringement litigation, differently from the patent invalidation trial, the defendant argued invalidity of the patent for the reason that the patent invention was publicly used.  A settlement agreement wherein the defendant admits validity of the patent and the infringement was reached before the court.

Software: We represented a smartphone application development and distribution company (defendant) in patent infringement litigation and multiple preliminary injunction proceedings filed by a Korean company (patent owner/plaintiff) based upon its smartphone software-related three patents. We also represented the same company in patent invalidation proceedings at the Japan Patent Office which we filed against the patent owner. The court delivered a verdict of non-infringement for one petition of preliminary injunction for the reason of invalidity of the patent due to breach of requirements for amendment to the claim after registration of the patent.  The plaintiff withdrew all such preliminary petitions.  The settlement for the patent infringement litigation was made in front of the court upon the condition that, in exchange of withdrawing the invalidation proceedings, the patent owner admitted no infringement of their patent in-issue in such proceedings.

Cosmetics: This is a case following the case mentioned below as “Unfair Competition” case.  The Japanese individual (patent owner/plaintiff) filed a patent infringement litigation against our client, an affiliate of the European cosmetic company (defendant), based upon its patent concerning a lipstick container.  Our client filed the patent invalidation proceedings at the Japan Patent Office against the Japanese individual and appealed to the IP High Court, in addition to submitting defense of invalidity of the patent based upon usurped application, as well as defense of the prior use rights.  The court did not approve the invalidity of the patent, but rejected the infringement based upon the prior use rights, and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

Unfair Competition; False Statement of Patent Infringement: Under Japanese law, distribution of warning letter of infringement to third parties constitutes an Unfair Competition, if the alleged infringing products is proved not to infringe the patent.  A Japanese small company (defendant), represented by a Japanese individual (patent owner), distributed warning letters to retailers alleging that our client, a European cosmetic company (plaintiff), infringed the patent owned by the patent owner concerning a lipstick container, and visited some retailers by threatening them with criminal penalty under the Patent Law.  Our client filed a litigation at a District Court and the IP High Court seeking declaratory judgement of non-infringement of patent, injunction of false statements of infringement and compensation for damages pursuant to the Unfair Competition Prevention Law, as well as patent nullification proceedings at Japan Patent Office and the IP High Court against the defendant.  The court did not approve the invalidity of the patent, but declared the non-infringement of the defendant’s patent based upon the prior use rights of our client, and ordered injunction of false statements and the payment of compensation for damages pursuant to the Unfair Competition Prevention Law.

Doctrine of Equivalent and Abuse of Patent Right: The client is the supplier of roof plates, which is the defendant in patent infringement litigation concerning the roofing structure.  The client denied the literal infringement, but the plaintiff argued the application of the Doctrine of Equivalent.  The client also submitted a defense of abuse of patent right based upon apparent invalidity of the patent (this case is after “Kilby” case Supreme Court judgement, but before insertion of Article 104-3 of the Patent Law).  The court declared the apparent invalidity of the patent, as well as denial of application of Doctrine of Equivalent, and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

Employee’s Invention: The client is an affiliate of a Japanese semi-conductor manufacturer.  A former employee of the client filed a lawsuit seeking payment of “reasonable consideration” for transfer of employee’s invention to the client pursuant to Article 35.3 of the Patent Law (before amendment of 2004).  The issue was the contribution ratio of the plaintiff.  The court admitted only about 5% of the amount claimed by the plaintiff.

2006 – 2009　Supreme Court, Legal Training and Research Institute of Japan Professor (Civil Procedures)

1993 – 1996　Supreme Court, Legal Training and Research Institute of Japan, Assistant Professor (Civil Procedures)

• Represented a Korean smartphone app development and distribution company (defendant) in patent infringement litigation and multiple preliminary injunction proceedings filed by a Korean company (patent owner/plaintiff) based upon its smartphone software-related patents, as well as serving as a representative in patent nullification proceedings at the Japan Patent Office against the Korean company (the court delivered a verdict of non-infringement for one petition and the plaintiff withdrew all the petitions).
• Represented a European cosmetics company (plaintiff) in litigation seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of patent, an injunction of false statements of injunction, and compensation for damages. Also represented the cosmetics company in patent nullification proceedings at the Japan Patent Office and the IP High Court against a small Japanese company (patent holder/defendant) who alleged that the European cosmetic company was infringing upon its cosmetics container patent (the court did not recognize the invalidity of the patent, but declared non-infringement, and ordered the payment of compensation for damages).

“New Employee Invention Regulation in Japan after 2016 Amendments” (Newsletter August of Preu Bohlig & Partner) February 2017

“License Agreements with U.S. Companies: Provisions Which Japanese Companies Should Carefully Consider – With a Focus on Provisions Regarding Infringement and Intellectual Property under Japanese and U.S. Law.” (the Japan Pharmaceutical Industry Legal Affairs Association’s Study Group on International Issues) December 2017

“Patent Infringement Litigation in Japan“ (Japanese-German Business Association, “Intellectual Property in Japan”) October 2017

“Patent Infringement Litigation in Japan” (Seminar with Preu Bohlig & Partner, “Current Development in Intellectual Property in Japan and Germany”) October 2017

• Responsible for lawsuits on behalf of European and Japanese companies calling for Japanese firms to stop selling products that copied the forms of products sold by the represented companies based on the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.
• Was responsible for a lawsuit on behalf of a European company calling for a Japanese firm selling products that were slightly altered versions of the European company’s products to stop selling/destroy said products based on the infringement of copyright law.
• Represented a European company in procedures involving a Japanese firm that used as the name of its retail establishments an identical or similar trademark as that held by the European firm and instituted a lawsuit based on copyright law and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act calling for the suspension of use of said name.
• Represented a European company regarding the names of products being considered for sale in Japan in negotiations with a copyright holder who held trademark rights in the same field.
• Represented a European artist in negotiations with a Japanese firm that sold goods featuring illustrations of the artist’s work, conclusion of a licensing contract (extension) relating to the use of copyrighted material.

“Legal Consulting for Trademarks I”　(Seirin-shoin, co-author) September 2017

“Introduction to Trademark License Agreements” (Workshop of Japan Patent Attorneys Association, Kanto Branch) 2016

“Overview of Recent IP-related Court Precedents (Trademark Law)” (IP-related Workshop of Japan Bar Association) 2016

・2007 (Ne) 10034 Patent Infringement Injunction Appeal (September 10, 2007)

・2009 (Gyo-ke) Request for Rescission 10170 (May 10, 2010)

“Patent Strategy and the Trend in Developing Technologies for Drug Modalities” (The Technical Information Institute Co., Ltd., pp. 549-555, Co-author: Hiroshi Morita, etc.) May 31, 2019.

“4 Global Business Expansion and IP Management in the Pharmaceutical Industry” (“Institute of Intellectual Property Forum, 2015, Spring, Vol. 101, Special Feature: “Japanese Company Overseas Business Expansion and IP Strategies/ Issues and Responses in IP Negotiations” pp. 4-7, Institute of Intellectual Property) 2015.

“From the Ground Up: The Latest IP Information Related to Pharmaceutical Patents such as the China/Taiwan Patent Linkage System”(Johokiko Co., Ltd) August 2018.

“Employee Inventions in Germany and Japan” (EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation) 2016.

• While working for one of the leading precision machine manufacturers, handled litigation rescinding a trial decision at the IP High Court regarding three of the manufacturer’s patent applications which were nullified in oppositions. Drafted a brief and won a judgment upholding our claim with regard to one of the three cases.
• Represented a defendant in an invalidation trial regarding a patent held by a molding apparatus manufacturer. Drafted all related documents including the written answer, and won a decision rejecting the demand.
• Represented a defendant in two invalidation trials concerning patents held by a vehicle equipment manufacturer. Drafted all related documents including the written answer, and won a decision rejecting the demand in both cases.

• Joined a patent infringement lawsuit tried in Tokyo district court as an assistant to the plaintiff, a German electrical device manufacturer.
• Joined a patent infringement lawsuit tried in Tokyo district court as an assistant to the plaintiff, a Japanese electrical device manufacturer
• Represented several German applicants in a suit for canceling a trial decision of refusal.
• Represented a German patent holder in a suit for canceling a trial decision of non-invalidation

• Provided expertise in a dispute between a European machine part manufacturer (represented by Sonderhoff & Einsel) and a Japanese company (patentee) who claimed that the manufacturer was infringing on patent rights related to a valve structure.
• Resolved a dispute between a European sporting goods manufacturer (represented by Sonderhoff & Einsel) and a Japanese company (patentee) who claimed that the manufacturer was infringing on patent rights related to the structure of a snowboard binding.
• Helped resolve a dispute between a European machine parts manufacturer (patentee, represented by Sonderhoff & Einsel) and a European company who claimed that its patent rights related to the structure of a torque converter were invalid.
• Handled dispute resolution between a European multi-tool manufacturer (patentee, represented by Sonderhoff & Einsel) and a Japanese company who infringed on the patent rights of the manufacturer’s multi-tool structure.

Eight suits against appeal/trial decisions, two patent infringement litigations, four license negotiations

・represented a European automotive/power tool manufacturer (Patentee) in a provision for patent infringement litigation while assisting in license engagement negotiation. This assistance led to a successful conclusion of a license engagement after convincing a licensee (a Japanese major electronics manufacturer) that it would not prevail in patent infringement litigation.

・represented a European automotive/power tool manufacturer, a European electronics manufacturer, and a Canadian communication equipment developer in several cases of suit regarding appeals/trial decisions at the IP High Court.

“Basic knowledge of Intellectual property 1” Textbook for Sangyo nouritsu University correspondence course (Sanno Institute of Management), coauthor, 2006

• (Publications) Section 11 IT Company Tasks and Trademarks”, (Intellectual Property and the Law: Business Models and Compliance Program Framework, Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun, Co-author: Saori Maekawa), August, 2004

• (Lectures) “Trademark Inventory” (Japan Trademark Association (JTA)) July 10th, 2019

Litigation case No. 2006 (Gyo-ke) 10094

Litigation case No. 2008 (Gyo-ke) 10367

Invalidation trial No. 2010-800149

Invalidation trial No. 2013-800073

Many opposition cases

As a patent attorney assisting attorneys-at-law, represented a Korean IT venture company in three provisional dispositions.  These three cases ended due to withdrawal by the obligee.

Represented the same Korean IT venture company (appellee) in a patent infringement litigation as a patent attorney assisting attorneys-at-law.