特許無効審判により無効とされるべきもの

[Herman]

This is from a court decision.

「したがって、本件発明１に係る特許は特許無効審判により無効とされるべきものである（特許法１０４条の３第１項、１２３条１項４号）。」

For the portion 特許無効審判により無効とされるべきものである, I came up with
"is subject to invalidation through a patent invalidation trial".

Is there a different and perhaps better way to render this?

Herman Kahn

[John Stroman]

Herman,

I'm not sure if these entries are better, but you can check the glossary at  http://www.patro.co.jp/term/index.html​  for additional options. The Sangyo dictionary https://www.sangyo-honyaku.jp/dictionaries  does not have an exact match, but does give several examples of English translations in running text.

I might have rendered your translation slightly more literally and used "...should be found (rendered) invalid in a patent invalidation trial (or one of the many options for ​ 特許無効審判)" since your writer seems to be making an argument or rendering a decision. If you do not like "should be" perhaps "is likely to be" (in the writer's opinion) might work. It will depend on the context of your document.

​Good luck,

John Stroman​

----------------

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kirill Sereda]

I would use "shall be invalidated (although the semi-official English translation of the law uses "should") through an invalidation trial (not "patent invalidation trial").

Kirill Sereda

[Herman]

On 19/12/17 11:46, John Stroman wrote:
>
> I might have rendered your translation slightly more literally and used
> "...should be found (rendered) invalid in a patent invalidation trial
> (or one of the many options for ​ 特許無効審判)" since your writer seems
> to be making an argument or rendering a decision. If you do not like
> "should be" perhaps "is likely to be" (in the writer's opinion) might
> work. It will depend on the context of your document.
>

I think "should be..." is not a good choice because it implies futurity
(implies that an invalidation trial in which the patent was found
invalid has not occurred yet), whereas 無効とされるべきものである does not have
that implication.

Herman Kahn

[John Stroman]

Herman,

I agree with your logic, and I did not intend to recommend that you use "should be" without qualification.

Many of my clients are native Japanese speakers who expect certain phrases in Japanese to be translated according to their​ preconceptions. Hence, the semi-official English translation of the law mentioned by Kirill, which uses "should be" although it may not be the best English in your context. Please remember that I do not have access to the context of your document, and I apologize if you understood my post to be a strong recommendation for translating "べき in your context.

Perhaps we are actually looking at "shall/should/will/would be invalidated" as an alternative. I do think that the author is implying the outcome of a future event, perhaps even presided over by your author. What other reason would the author have for citing the relevant section of the Patent Act?

John Stroman

----------------

[Frank Apps]

Herman

I think "is appropriate to be invalidated" is preferable, since this sentence itself actually gives expression to the decision.

David Apps

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Herman]

On 19/12/17 14:09, John Stroman wrote:

> Perhaps we are actually looking at "shall/should/will/would be
> invalidated" as an alternative. I do think that the author is implying
> the outcome of a future event, perhaps even presided over by your
> author. What other reason would the author have for citing the relevant
> section of the Patent Act?

The sentence in question is
「したがって、本件発明１に係る特許は特許無効審判により無効とされるべきものである（特許法１０４条の３第１項、１２３条１項４号）。」

which references

特許法第百四条の三　特許権又は専用実施権の侵害に係る訴訟において、当該特許が特許無効審判により無効にされるべきものと認められるときは、特許権者又は専用実施権者は、相手方に対しその権利を行使することができない

The document is a court decision in a case of 特許権又は専用実施権の侵害に係る訴訟
- a case where A sued B for patent infringement. In this particular
case, in response to being sued for infringement, B demanded an
invalidation trial at the JPO, as a result of which a portion of the
patent in question (本件発明１に係る特許) was invalidated, prior to this court
decision.

The document author (judge), and the Patent Act section cited, are
talking about a patent that is "subject to invalidation" or that "would
be rightfully invalidated", i.e. that it would in principle be
appropriate to invalidate such a patent - they are not implying that it
has not already been invalided when the litigation in question occurs.

Herman Kahn

[John Stroman]

Herman,

Thank you for the clarification. You decision seems appropriate in this context.

John Stroman​

----------------

[Mika J.]

「したがって、本件発明１に係る特許は（むしろ）特許無効審判（の手続き）により無効とされるべきものである（特許法１０４条の３第１項、１２３条１項４号）。」

むしろ can be further expanded as 本侵害訴訟において判断するよりも、むしろ.

But none of these extra words are really necessary, in proper context.

I'm questioning the 審判=trial equation, by the way.  

How about: "is subject to invalidation through a patent invalidation trial process".

Reference:

（特許無効審判）

第一二三条　特許が次の各号のいずれかに該当するときは、その特許を無効にすることについて特許無効審判を請求することができる。

http://www.houko.com/00/01/S34/121.HTM#s6

Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
        English to Japanese Translator
        http://inJapanese.us

[Herman]

On 19/12/17 17:01, Mika J. wrote:
> 「したがって、本件発明１に係る特許は（むしろ）特許無効審判（の手続き）に
> より無効とされるべきものである（特許法１０４条の３第１項、１２３条１項４
> 号）。」
>
> むしろ can be further expanded as 本侵害訴訟において判断するよりも、むしろ.

I suppose that is a possible reading of the text, but is clearly not
correct in this context, because this is basically citing the language
of 特許法１０４条の３第１項, a provision added precisely for the purpose of allowing
a court adjudicating cases of 侵害訴訟 (which do not have the authority to
actually invalidate patents) to nevertheless judge that a patent in
dispute qualifies as a "特許無効審判により無効にされるべきもの" and thus treat
it as invalid for purposes of adjudicating the infringement claim.

The problem with "subject to invalidation" is that while "subject to X"
can have the meaning of Ｘされるべき, Ｘを受けるべき the expression is ambiguous
and also has the sense of Ｘされ得る and others.

Herman Kahn



特許法第百四条の三　特許権又は専用実施権の侵害に係る訴訟において、当該特許が特許無効審判により無効にされるべきものと認められるときは、特許権者又は専用実施権者は、相手方に対しその権利を行使することができない。

[John Stroman]

Aha!

Thank you Herman for the additional clarification. The author is quoting or paraphrasing the law (without quotation marks), so the とされるべき​ in the non-past tense makes sense.

I deal regularly with these kinds of documents and should have recognized the author was quoting law from the citation in parentheses.

Japanese writers are not bound to the kind of verb tense agreement expected by native speakers of English (biased by our Indo-European thought processes), but judges and patent examiners are usually pretty careful in that area. They are, however, likely to quote without quotation marks, which can also cause confusion among native English speaking readers.

John Stroman

----------------

[Mika J.]

Let me clarify by adjusting my Japanese word order:
本訴訟において侵害と判断するよりも、むしろ.

If I'm not mistaken, 特許無効審判 is a separate, administrative process.

http://www.y-po.net/qanda/2011/12/post_22.html

特許無効審判とは、特許に関して無効理由があることを示す証拠を特許庁に提出して、その特許を無効にすることを求める手続である。

Your source text is simply saying that "it's not our call to make" by utilizing the expression されるべきもの."

「したがって、本件発明１に係る特許は特許無効審判により無効とされるべきものである（特許法１０４条の３第１項、１２３条１項４号）。」

特許法第百四条の三　

特許権又は専用実施権の侵害に係る訴訟において、

(当該特許が特許無効審判により

無効にされるべきものと認められるときは、)

特許権者又は専用実施権者は、

相手方に対しその権利を行使することができない。

[Herman]

On 21/12/17 15:58, Mika J. wrote:
> Let me clarify by adjusting my Japanese word order:
> 本訴訟において侵害と判断するよりも、むしろ.
> If I'm not mistaken, 特許無効審判 is a separate, administrative process.
>
> http://www.y-po.net/qanda/2011/12/post_22.html

> <http://www.y-po.net/qanda/2011/12/post_22.html>
> 特許無効審判とは、特許に関して無効理由があることを示す証拠を特許庁に提出

> して、その特許を無効にすることを求める手続である。
>
> Your source text is simply saying that "it's not our call to make" by
> utilizing the expression されるべきもの."
> 「したがって、本件発明１に係る特許は特許無効審判により無効とされるべきも
> のである（特許法１０４条の３第１項、１２３条１項４号）。」
>
> 特許法第百四条の三　
> 特許権又は専用実施権の侵害に係る訴訟において、
> (当該特許が特許無効審判により
> 無効にされるべきものと認められるときは、)
> 特許権者又は専用実施権者は、
> 相手方に対しその権利を行使することができない。

Yes, that would be one way to parse it, but that is not the intended
meaning as understood by the Japanese legal community.

The intended meaning is:

(特許権又は専用実施権の侵害に係る訴訟において、[当該特許が特許無効審判により無効にされるべきもの]と認められるときは)、
特許権者又は専用実施権者は、 相手方に対しその権利を行使することができない。

Or more clearly,
当該特許が特許無効審判により無効にされるべきもの[であることが]
特許権又は専用実施権の侵害に係る訴訟において認められるときは、
特許権者又は専用実施権者は、 相手方に対しその権利を行使することができない。

Or to rephrase it still more clearly,

特許権又は専用実施権の侵害に係る訴訟において、
裁判官は特許を無効にすることはできながいが、
裁判官は、「当該特許が特許無効審判により無効にされるべきものである」と認めることができる。裁判官がそう認めたときは、
特許権者又は専用実施権者は、 相手方に対しその権利を行使することができない。

Herman Kahn

[Mika J.]

That's exactly what I was trying to point out.

I am not seeing what was incorrect in what I wrote. 

特許権又は専用実施権の侵害に係る訴訟において、
裁判官は特許を無効にすることはできないが、(extra がremoved, but that's besides the point.)

裁判官は、「当該特許が特許無効審判により無効にされるべきものである」と認めることができる。裁判官がそう認めたときは、
特許権者又は専用実施権者は、 相手方に対しその権利を行使することができない。

Anyhow, thank you for the additional clarification.  It's a good discussion.

[Herman]

On 21/12/17 18:40, Mika J. wrote:
> That's exactly what I was trying to point out.
> I am not seeing what was incorrect in what I wrote.
>
> 特許権又は専用実施権の侵害に係る訴訟において、
> 裁判官は特許を無効にすることはできないが、(extra がremoved, but that's
> besides the point.)
> 裁判官は、「当該特許が特許無効審判により無効にされるべきものである」と認
> めることができる。裁判官がそう認めたときは、
> 特許権者又は専用実施権者は、 相手方に対しその権利を行使することができない。
>

I suppose my clarification itself was unclear.

The point of the text
「侵害に係る訴訟において、当該特許が特許無効審判により無効にされるべきものと認められる」
is not to say that 特許の無効化は特許無効審判により行うべきものだ.

Rather it is to say something like
裁判官は、特許侵害に係る訴訟において、特許無効審判を経ずに、該訴訟の範囲内に限って、当該特許を無効と認めることができる。

Herman Kahn

[Mika J.]

That makes sense, Herman. 

Some patented inventions are just unlucky that way!

> (本件発明１に係る特許) was invalidated, prior to this court decision.

So, this quote from the Article 104-3 is a handy stock expression for the court. 

I hope it's also clear now that this indirect expression of duty とされるべきもの conveniently distances the court from having to know the precise timing of the 特許無効審判, although he probably knew it when he reached for the cut and paste key combination. Nah..., that I honestly do not know.  Maybe he could type that out just as fast.

Mika Jarmusz 清水美香 

        English to Japanese Translator
        http://inJapanese.us