Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Editor: D. Daniel Sokol
University of Florida
Levin College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Exercise of Patent Rights Under Japanese Anti-Monopoly Prevention Law: A Comparative Law Perspective

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Toshiko Takenaka, University of Washington - School of Law describes Exercise of Patent Rights Under Japanese Anti-Monopoly Prevention Law: A Comparative Law Perspective.

ABSTRACT: Article 21 of Japan’s Anti-monopoly Law gives immunity from anti-competition liability to the exercise of copyrights, patents, trademark registrations and other intellectual property (IP) rights. However, Japan’s Fair Trade Commission (FTC) excludes from the immunity a sham IP right exercise, which deviates from or conflicts with the mission of the IP system. A sham exercise of patent rights does not contribute to but rather hinders the promotion of inventions for developments of industry in Japan. This interpretation is also supported by the Basic Intellectual Property Law requiring the government to pay attention to the fair use of IP rights and public interests in developing Japan’s national IP strategies. When the Supreme Court of Japan decided the legality of recycled printer ink cartridges, it adopted a different approach from the U.S. Supreme Court and lower US courts. The Court’s limited application of the exhaustion doctrine allows the patentee to restrict resale and reuse of a patented product legally sold by the patentee. This article compares anti-monopoly issues regarding recycling patented products under Japanese and U.S. laws.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2011/11/exercise-of-patent-rights-under-japanese-anti-monopoly-prevention-law-a-comparative-law-perspective.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0154364db9cb970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Exercise of Patent Rights Under Japanese Anti-Monopoly Prevention Law: A Comparative Law Perspective:

Comments

Post a comment