(The 15th ordinary meeting of the People's Government of the Grand State of 14 May 2012 considered the adoption of the Ordinance No. 81 of 30 July 2012.

The 1415th Standing Conference of the Municipal Government decided to amend the Patent Disputes Approach to the City of Hiroshima as follows:

Amendments to Articles 14 and 15 “release or suspension” are “dues or seizures”.

Paragraph 2 of Article 17 reads as follows: “The sectors in which patents are administered may be entrusted to the municipal intellectual property inspectorate for the purpose of obtaining evidence, surveys, seizures or suspension of items relating to the case.”

This decision is implemented since the date of publication.

The Modalities for dealing with patent disputes in the city of Hiroshima were re-published following the amendments to this decision.

Annex: Maximizing the Patent Disputes (Amendment of 2012) (published on 28 May 2002 by the People's Government Order [2002] No. 5, 30 July 2012)

Chapter I General

In order to effectively deal with and mediate patent disputes, protect the legitimate rights and interests of inventors and patentees and their stakeholders, maintain socio-economic order, develop this approach in line with laws, regulations such as the Patents Act of the People's Republic of China and its implementing rules and the Patent Protection Regulations of the Province of Hiroshima.

Article 2 addresses and conciliates patent disputes within the administrative areas of the wide-ranging State and applies this approach.

Article 3. Sectors governing patents are responsible for handling and conciliation of patent disputes within the city's administration.

The sectors in which the patent management work can be entrusted with the processing and mediation of patent disputes within the present administrative area in the sectors where the patent is administered by the district, the district level.

Article IV deals with patent disputes in sectors that manage patent work and should be based on fact-finding, in accordance with the principles of justice and timeliness.

Sectoral mediation of patent disputes in the administration of patents should be carried out on the basis of the law for identifying facts and responsibilities.

Article 5 deals with and mediation of patent disputes and follows the principle of no longer-termism.

Chapter II

Article 6 Sectors governing patent work deal with infringements that fall within the scope of the patent infringements in the present city's administration; mediation of the following patent disputes:

(i) The right to apply for patents and the right to be at the seat of the requested person in the present municipal administration;

(ii) Inventors, designers' eligibility disputes and the location of the requested person is within the administrative region of the city;

(iii) Inventors, designers' incentives and compensation disputes, and the units granted patent rights are located within the present municipal administration;

(iv) The use of inventions in which the patent right to make use of invention disputes that do not pay due expenses prior to the publication of the patent application is in the administrative region of the city;

(v) Other patent disputes requiring the regulation of sectoral mediation in patent work.

Article 7 requires a period of limitation of two years for dealing with patent infringements, from the knowledge of the patent owner or the stakeholder, or from the date of the abuse.

Article 8. Sectoral handling and conciliation of patent disputes in which patents are requested shall be in accordance with the following conditions:

(i) The requesting person is a unit or individual that has a direct stake in the case;

(ii) There is a clear requester, with specific requests and factual grounds;

(iii) The parties did not sue the People's Court on the patent dispute;

(iv) The scope and jurisdiction of sectors that fall under the administration of patents in the city;

(v) In line with the relevant provisions of this approach.

The patent infringement disputes involve a new type of patents, and the sectors governing patent work in the city may require the requester to make a retrieval report by the patent administration of the State.

Article 9 requires that the authorities in which the patent is managed or mediation of the patent dispute shall submit a request and submit a copy of the request by the requested number.

The request shall contain the following matters:

(i) The name or name, address, legal representative or principal of the requesting person;

(ii) To request matters, facts and grounds, evidence;

(iii) Effective evidence of patent rights.

The request shall be signed by the requesting person or by chapter.

Article 10. After receipt of a request for treatment of patents in the sectors governing patents, a notice of admissibility or omission shall be issued within 7 days.

Sections in the administration of patents in the city shall send a copy of the request to the requested person within 7 days of the date of the receipt of the case. The requested person shall submit a letter of reply and related evidence within 15 days of the date of receipt of the request.

The requested person was not late in submitting the letter of reply without prejudice to the work of dealing with the patent dispute.

Chapter III Treatment and conciliation of patent disputes

Article 12. After the sectoral processing of patent disputes by the municipal administration, the contractor should be appointed, and the complexity of the case may be based on the need for a composite expert group.

Article 13 has one of the following cases, which should be avoided by themselves and the parties have the right to request a waiver:

(i) The relatives of the parties to this dispute;

(ii) The interesting relationship with this dispute;

(iii) Other relations with the parties to this dispute may affect the fair handling of the dispute.

Article XIV governs the handling of patent disputes by sectors of the patent work, which are entitled to conduct on-site inspection inspections, envelopes or seizure of original vouchers, such as files, books, information, books, books, books, books, etc. relating to violations, or individuals shall assist in the investigation and provision of information and shall not be denied.

The staff of the case must present a law enforcement document to inform the parties and the persons concerned at the site when the case is processed.

Article 15. When the sectors in which the patent is administered are treated in the case of a patent, the goods, materials, specialized tools, equipment, etc. may be seized or seized on the basis of a request from the applicant.

The requesting person is required to apply for the seizure or seizure of the measure and must provide security. The requested person provides security and, with the consent of the sectoral review of the work of the patent, the removal or return of the seizure.

Article 16, in violation of article 14 of the present scheme, the relevant units or individuals refuse to provide or conceal the collection, transfer, destruction and case-related documents, contracts, paper, information, or unauthorized seizures, transfer of the seized goods, and fines for the sectors in which the patent is administered by the city for more than 1,000 to $50,000.

Sections that manage patent work in the city may authorize other sectors to investigate the evidence of the work of the patent or to accept the commission of other sectoral surveys for the management of patents.

Article 18 Departments that manage patent work deal with infringements of patents may be subject to an oral hearing on the merits. The decision to conduct an oral hearing shall be communicated to the parties at a time and place for the oral hearing, without justification for refusing to participate or to withdraw without permission, and the requesting person shall be treated in absentia on the initiative of withdrawing the request.

The case licensor shall register the participants and the points of the proceedings before the oral proceedings to the record, which shall be signed by the participating person or by chapter.

Article 19 investigates, disposes of the end, and the authorities governing patents should make timely decisions and produce decisions. The following matters should be addressed:

(i) The name or name of the party, address, the name of the legal representative or the principal head, the commissioner;

(ii) To address the facts and applicable laws, regulations or regulations;

(iii) Addressing results and the burden of processing costs;

(iv) To refrain from dealing with decisions and the means and duration of administrative proceedings;

(v) Date of the decision being taken.

The handling of the decision should be accompanied by a copy of the sectoral chapter governing the patent.

Article 20 does not deal with the decision, and administrative proceedings shall be instituted before the People's Court within 15 days of receipt of the decision. Without prosecution and inadmissibility, the municipal authorities that manage patents can apply for enforcement by the People's Court.

There is a need for a change in the record matter, and the relevant units or individuals may make copies of the decision-making and related supporting documents available to the patent administration of the State.

Article 21, after the management of the patent work sector or the decision of the People's Court to determine the treatment or judgement of the violation, the patent owner or the stakeholder sought to deal with the same types of violations of the same patent rights, and the authorities governing patents could make a direct decision to immediately put an end to violations.

The second article, when the parties request the authorities in charge of managing patents to deal with infringements of the patent or, after the establishment of the public administration of the patent work, may request mediation for damages against the patent rights.

A copy of the request for mediation of patents should be sent to the requesting person in a timely manner, after the authorities in which the patent was managed, and requests that they submit submissions within the specified period.

Article 24 submitted by the requested person and agreed to engage in conciliation, and the authorities in the administration of patents should receive requests for mediation, promptly notify the requesting and the requested person of the time and place of mediation, without the justification of participation or the absence of permission to withdraw, and treat the requested person on the initiative of withdrawing the request and address the requested person by failing to reach agreement.

The requesting person had not submitted his or her statement of opinion or had indicated that mediation was not accepted in the presentation of the opinion, and the authorities governing patents in the city should inform the requesting person of the request for mediation.

Article 25 Agreement on the mediation of patent disputes between sectors that manage patents shall not be in conformity with national laws and policies and shall not undermine public interests and the interests of others.

When an agreement is reached on conciliation, the authorities in charge of the administration of patents should produce conciliations that should contain the following matters:

(i) The name or name of the party, address, the name of the legal representative or the principal head, the commissioner;

(ii) The main facts of the dispute and the responsibility to be assumed;

(iii) The content and costs of the agreement.

The letter of mediation shall be signed by the parties or by the name of chapter, by the licensor and by the department in which the patent is administered.

Article 27, which was not agreed upon by mediation, was closed by the municipal administration of patents in a way that was withdrawn and communicated to the parties.

Chapter IV

Article 28 should be transferred to the judiciary in the process of dealing with or conciliation of patent disputes, if found to require criminal accountability.

Article 29 governs the treatment or conciliation of patent disputes by sectors in which patents are operated or may be charged with receiving and charging fees in accordance with the fees approved by the SWAE.

The admissibility and redeployment of the patent case shall be paid by the requesting person.

The cost of dealing with patent disputes should be borne by the responsible party and the parties have the responsibility to share costs at the level of responsibility; the agreement on mediation of patent disputes should be shared by the parties in consultation; and the costs should be borne by the requesting.

Article 31 is implemented since the date of publication. The provisional scheme for patenting disputes in the Hiroshima Municipalities, published in 1988, was repealed.