{"id":6701,"date":"2026-07-22T20:35:26","date_gmt":"2026-07-22T11:35:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skiplaw.jp\/en\/?p=6701"},"modified":"2026-07-22T20:48:44","modified_gmt":"2026-07-22T11:48:44","slug":"japanese-patent-applications-2026-revision-of-the-examination-guidelines","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skiplaw.jp\/en\/japan-ip-practice\/6701\/","title":{"rendered":"Japanese Patent Applications: 2026 Revision of the Examination Guidelines"},"content":{"rendered":"

\nThe Japan Patent Office (JPO) has revised the Examination Guidelines for Patent and Utility Model Applications. The JPO announced the revisions on June 25, 2026, and the revised Guidelines are applicable to examinations conducted on or after July 1, 2026<\/span>.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe JPO provides an English-language version of the Examination Guidelines at the link below. However, the English-language version has not yet been updated to reflect the revisions applicable from July 1, 2026<\/span>.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe JPO states on its English-language website that the English text will be revised at a later date. Accordingly, the revised Japanese text should be consulted for the details of the 2026 revisions. In the event of any ambiguity of interpretation, the Japanese text prevails.\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n📄 JPO Notice Regarding the English-language Guidelines\n<\/div>\n
\n

\n\u201cThe Japanese text will be revised on July 1, 2026. The English text will be revised at a later date.\u201d\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\nSource: Japan Patent Office<\/span>
\nExamination Guidelines for Patent and Utility Model in Japan<\/a>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\nOverview of the Revisions to the Examination Guidelines
\n<\/h2>\n

\nPart I, Chapter 2, Section 1: \u201cSpecifying Claimed Invention\u201d
\n<\/h3>\n

\nThe Guidelines now expressly state that the examiner must confirm the time or date of filing of the patent application concerned.\n<\/p>\n

\nPart III, Chapter 2, Section 2: \u201cInventive Step\u201d
\n<\/h3>\n

\nThe descriptions concerning obstructive factors and other relevant matters have been clarified.\n<\/p>\n

\nThis revision is considered to reflect concerns among users of the patent system regarding inventive-step assessments in applications in which an
\namendment providing a disclaimer<\/span> has been made.\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n📄 Revision of the Guidelines Concerning Inventive Step\n<\/div>\n
\n

\nThe working group confirmed the nature of the concerns regarding inventive step in applications amended to include a disclaimer\u2014specifically, concerns that patents might be granted despite a lack of inventive step. These concerns may have arisen from a misunderstanding that the existence of an obstructive factor immediately leads to a finding of inventive step, rather than from a problem with the method used to assess inventive step.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe descriptions in the Examination Guidelines concerning obstructive factors were therefore reviewed to facilitate appropriate assessments of inventive step and improve predictability.\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\nSources: Japan Patent Office<\/span>
\n\u30fbMaterials for the 19th Meeting of the Working Group on Examination Guidelines<\/a>
\n\u30fbMaterial 1: Revision of the Examination Guidelines Concerning Amendments Providing a Disclaimer
\n<\/a>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\nPart III, Chapter 3: \u201cSecret Prior Art\u201d
\n<\/h3>\n

\nIt has been clarified that whether the applicants are identical is to be determined substantively, taking into account changes in title or name and other relevant circumstances.\n<\/p>\n

\nPart III, Chapter 4: \u201cPrior Application\u201d
\n<\/h3>\n

\nWith respect to cases in which a request for examination has not been filed for one or more applications filed on the same date, the practice has been changed where the applicants are different, and the practice has been clarified where the applicants are identical.\n<\/p>\n

\nPart IV, Chapter 2: \u201cAmendment Adding New Matter\u201d
\n<\/h3>\n

\nSection 3.3.1(4), \u201cIn the case of an amendment which provides a disclaimer,\u201d has been clarified in order to address the concern that the previous wording could give rise to the misunderstanding that an amendment does not add new matter as long as it excludes only the overlap with the cited invention.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe Examination Handbook was also revised in conjunction with the revision of the Examination Guidelines. New items, including item 12102, \u201cAmendment Deleting a Disclaimer,\u201d have been added to deepen understanding of the Guidelines and further clarify the applicable practice.\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n📄 Revision of the Examination Handbook\n<\/div>\n
\n

\nThe Examination Handbook was revised in conjunction with the revision of the Examination Guidelines, based on the results of the 18th and 19th meetings of the Working Group on Examination Guidelines.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe revised Examination Handbook is applicable to examinations conducted on or after July 1, 2026.\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\nSource: Japan Patent Office<\/span>
\nRevision of the Examination Handbook for Patent and Utility Model Applications<\/a>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nAmendment Deleting a Disclaimer
\n<\/h5>\n

\nNew Handbook item 12102 addresses an amendment deleting a disclaimer, such as the language \u201cexcluding …,\u201d from a claim.\n<\/p>\n

\nSuch an amendment may be made after a final notice of reasons for refusal or upon the filing of an appeal against an examiner\u2019s decision of refusal. At these stages, amendments are subject to the restrictions of Article 17bis(5) and must not constitute an \u201camendment for other than the prescribed purposes.\u201d The Handbook explains that it is not appropriate to apply this requirement more strictly than necessary to an amendment deleting a disclaimer.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe Handbook also refers to presenting a proposed amendment deleting the disclaimer and communicating with the examiner through an interview, a telephone interview, or other means.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe Handbook indicates that, in certain circumstances, the examiner may issue a decision to grant a patent without issuing a decision dismissing the amendment. Such communication may therefore be useful in confirming an appropriate direction for the amendment.\n<\/p>\n

\nPart VII, Chapter 1: \u201cOverview of Foreign Language Written Application System\u201d
\n<\/h3>\n

\nThe treatment of the substantive requirements for a divisional application or other application where the original application is a foreign-language written application has been clarified.\n<\/p>\n

\nPart VII, Chapter 2: \u201cExamination of Foreign Language Written Applications\u201d
\n<\/h3>\n

\nThe treatment of cases in which it is clear that an amendment made by submitting a statement for correction of an incorrect translation is not intended to correct an incorrect translation has been clarified.\n<\/p>\n

\nPart VIII: \u201cInternational Patent Application\u201d
\n<\/h3>\n

\nIn conjunction with the revisions to Part VII, the provisions referring to Part VII have been revised.\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Please note that this article is based on the information available and the applicable laws and regulations in effect as of the date of publication. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information provided, no guarantee is made as to its completeness or accuracy. We assume no liability whatsoever for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with the contents of this article. This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Before taking any action in a specific case, we strongly recommend consulting a qualified professional, such as a patent attorney.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) has revised the Examination Guidelines for Patent and Utility Model Applications. The JPO announced the revisions on June 25, 2026, and the revised Guidelines are applicable to examinations conducted on or after July 1, 2026. The JPO provides an English-language version of the Examination Guidelines at the link below. However, the English-language version has not yet been updated to reflect the revisions applicable from July 1, 2026. The JPO states on its English-language website that the English text will be revised at a later date. Accordingly, the revised Japanese text should be consulted for the details of the 2026 revisions. In the event of any […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6701","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-japan-ip-practice","law-patent","law-utility-model","area-japan"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skiplaw.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6701","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skiplaw.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skiplaw.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skiplaw.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skiplaw.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6701"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/skiplaw.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6701\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6712,"href":"https:\/\/skiplaw.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6701\/revisions\/6712"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skiplaw.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6701"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skiplaw.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6701"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skiplaw.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6701"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}