ブログ

文献の一部のみを翻訳してＩＤＳとして提出することは危険だと、よく主張されます。
その主張は、以下の事件の判決に基づいていると思われます。この事件では、ＳＥＬは、日本語文献に非常に重要な情報が含まれていたにも関わらず、その部分以外の部分の翻訳文をＩＤＳとして提出しましたが、その行為が特許庁をmisdirectしたとしてＩＤＳ違反によって権利行使が制限されました。
この判決の教訓は、部分訳を提出する場合は、その部分が最も特許性に関係が深いという確信をもって翻訳文を選択することが必要であることです。また、「欺く意図」が認定されないようにするには、ＪＰＯの要約の英語を何も考えずにＩＤＳ提出するのは、それなりに有効だと思います。

2004 Aids to Compliance With Duty of Disclosure [R-2]
7. Care should be taken to see that prior art or other information cited in a specification or in an information disclosure statement is properly described and that the information is not incorrectly or incompletely characterized. It is particularly important for an attorney or agent to review, before filing, an application which was prepared by someone else, e.g., a foreign application. It is also important that an attorney or agent make sure that foreign clients, including foreign applicants, attorneys, and agents understand the requirements of the duty of disclosure, and that the U.S. attorney or agent review any information disclosure statements or citations to ensure that compliance with 37 CFR 1.56 is present. See Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 54 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2000). During prosecution patentee submitted an untranslated 29-page Japanese reference as well as a concise explanation of its relevance and an existing one-page partial English translation, both of which were directed to less material portions of the reference. The untranslated portions of the Japanese reference “contained a more complete combination of the elements claimed [in the patent] than anything else before the PTO.” 204 F.3d at 1374, 54 USPQ2d at 1005. The patentee, whose native language was Japanese, was held to have understood the materiality of the reference. “The duty of candor does not require that the applicant translate every foreign reference, but only that the applicant refrain from submitting partial translations and concise explanations that it knows will misdirect the examiner’s attention from the reference’s relevant teaching.” 204 F.3d at 1378, 54 USPQ2d at 1008. See also Gemveto Jewelry Co. v. Lambert Bros., Inc., 542 F. Supp. 933, 216 USPQ 976 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) wherein a patent was held invalid or unenforceable because patentee’s foreign counsel did not disclose to patentee’s United States counsel or to the Office prior art cited by the Dutch Patent Office in connection with the patentee’s corresponding Dutch application. The court stated, 542 F. Supp. at 943, 216 USPQ at 985:
Foreign patent attorneys representing applicants for U.S. patents through local correspondent firms surely must be held to the same standards of conduct which apply to their American counterparts; a double standard of accountability would allow foreign attorneys and their clients to escape responsibility for fraud or inequitable conduct merely by withholding from the local correspondent information unfavorable to patentability and claiming ignorance of United States disclosure requirements.