EPO から分割出願条件について規定する EPC 規則 36 についての意見 ※今回は、アンケート様式でのパブコメ回答です。 ◎日本語版 (1)意見募集の内容現行のEPC規則 36やさらなる改正の必要性に関する意見の提出を受け、さらに、代替案がある場合はその概要と期待される効果の説明を聴取すべく、オンラインでパブリック・コメントを募集する。 (2)意見(案)の内容 (【】内がＥＰＯの質問事項) 【１．24 ヶ月の分割出願期限の導入はどのような影響を与えたか。】Ａ．親出願が係属している場合、予防的に分割出願をせざるを得ないケースがある。そのことで、コストの増大、期限管理の負担増に繋がった。また第三者としては、分割出願の監視負担が増えた。【２．現在の EPC 規則 36 の貴殿の総合的な評価はどうか。】Ａ．出願人にとっても、第三者にとっても、メリットはない。分割出願の起算日が多数あるので、ユーザーフレンドリとはいえない。【３．貴殿の見解では、現在の制度の肯定的な面は何か。それを強化することは可能か。どのようにすればよいか。】Ａ．なし。【４．現在の規則で再考すべき点はあるか。例えば、期限を 24 ヶ月から 48 ヶ月又は 60 ヶ月に延長すべきか。】Ａ．分割出願するか否かは、親出願の審査期間や親出願の状況によって判断されるから、（出願日から２年とか３年といった）期間のみを議論するのは重要ではない。また、期限の単なる延長では上記問題を解決できない。よって EPC 規則３６は元のような制度に戻すべきである。言い換えると、分割出願の期間は、親出願の係属期間をベースにすべきである。制度調和の観点から、EPO は他国の規則を参照すべきでもある。【５．規則のさらなる修正が最適化するのに役立つと思うか？もしそうなら、望ましいオプションの概要を説明してください。】Ａ．なし。現状の規則でもユーザーが理解するのは困難である。【６．法的措置（例えば、行財政措置）以外のどのようなアクションが単に出願を係属させるためだけの分割に対して EPO が取り組むことができると思うか。】Ａ．審査期間の短縮。 ※出願人の負担となる提案は控えた。 ◎英語版 1. How has the introduction of the time limits for filing divisional applications affected you? (It would be useful to learn about your background and / or your professional activity, as well as to get some insights into the extent to which your comments are the result of direct experience) Dear Sirs, We, the Japan Intellectual Property Association, are a private user organization established in Japan in 1938 for the purpose of promoting intellectual property protection, with about 900 major Japanese companies as members. When appropriate opportunities arise, we offer our opinions on the intellectual property systems of other countries and make recommendations for more effective implementation of the systems. We would like to offer our comments as follows. Your consideration of them would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours Takeshi Ueno President Japan Intellectual Property Association There are some cases where we have to file a divisional application as a precautionary filing, when the parent application is still pending. This has resulted in an increase of cost and workload for due date management for the applicants as well as an increase of workload for monitoring divisional applications for third parties. 2. What is your overall assessment of current Rule 36 EPC? We think that it will not bring any benefits to either applicants or third parties. Furthermore, it is not user-friendly, because there are many base dates that must be reckoned. 3. What are, in your opinion, the most positive aspects of the current regime? Would it be possible to reinforce them? How? We don’t foresee any positive aspects. 4. Are there aspects of the Rule you think should be reconsidered? For example, should the time limits be extended from 24 to 48 or 60 months? Because the consideration for divisional applications is influenced by the term of the examination for the parent application or the status of the parent application which are variable and unpredictable, discussion at the total term is not useful. The extension of the term does not seem to address the above problems. We think that Rule 36 should be returned to the former rule. That is to say, the term should be based on the pending term of the parent application. From the view of harmonization, the EPO should refer to the rule in other countries regarding the term for divisional applications. 5. Do you think that further amendment of the Rule would help to optimise it? If so, could you please outline your preferred option? No, we don’t. It is difficult for the users to understand even the current rule. 6. What kind of action other than legal measures (e.g. administrative or financial ones) do you think the EPO could take that would effectively address the issue of divisionals filed merely in order to prolong pendency? We think that the EPO should shorten the term of examination. 以上