事務所の特徴 > Patent > Unity of Invention in Japan for PCT Filings

Unity of Invention in Japan for PCT Filings

Introduction

One of the most important but often overlooked aspects of PCT national phase entry into Japan is the concept of "unity of invention." The Japan Patent Office (JPO) adheres strictly to this principle, which can have significant consequences for prosecution strategy and costs. In this article, we explain what unity of invention means in the Japanese context, why it's critical to comply, and how Origami International Patent Firm can help you navigate this issue.

What Does Unity of Invention Mean?

Unity of invention refers to the requirement that a patent application should relate to a single general inventive concept. The JPO evaluates unity by examining whether the claims are technically interconnected and support a unified concept. Claims that cover unrelated inventions may lead to a requirement for division or restriction.

JPO’s Interpretation and Practice

The JPO uses a strict approach in determining unity. Unlike some jurisdictions that may be lenient if a set of claims broadly relates to a similar field, the JPO expects precise and technical interrelationship. This standard applies to both independent and dependent claims and is frequently enforced during the examination stage.

Examples of Unity and Non-Unity

Consider a patent application that claims both a chemical composition and a method of using that composition. If the technical features are tightly connected, the JPO may accept them under one concept. However, if the claims also include a manufacturing apparatus unrelated to the composition or method, the examiner will likely find a lack of unity.

Consequences of Non-Unity

If the JPO finds the application lacks unity, they will issue a notice requiring the applicant to select one invention to proceed. This often necessitates filing divisional applications for the excluded inventions, incurring additional fees and time. Moreover, the original filing date for the divided applications may be retained only under certain conditions.

Strategies for Managing Unity

  • Careful Drafting: Review claim dependencies and technical features for alignment under one concept.
  • Early Unity Check: Conduct a unity review before entering the Japanese national phase.
  • Amendments on Entry: Modify claims to narrow or reframe inventions to fit JPO’s standards.
  • Division Planning: Prepare to file divisional applications where necessary and anticipate fee structures.

Origami’s Services for Unity Compliance

Our firm specializes in PCT national phase entries and is well-versed in JPO’s unity requirements. We offer claim reviews, pre-entry guidance, and strategic advice on amendment or division filing. Our goal is to streamline your entry process and avoid unnecessary cost burdens from unity objections.

Explore Our Comprehensive PCT Support

From translation to unity assessment, we offer everything you need for a smooth Japan entry. Learn more:
Origami International Patent Firm – PCT/Paris Entry into Japan

FAQs

Q1. What is unity of invention?
A1. Unity of invention means that all claims must be linked by a single general inventive concept. JPO strictly enforces this.

Q2. What happens if unity is lacking?
A2. JPO may issue a requirement for restriction or division, which can increase cost and delay prosecution.

Q3. Can I amend claims to address a unity objection?
A3. Yes. Origami can assist you in crafting amendments that meet unity requirements while preserving your claim scope.

Q4. How can I avoid unity issues from the start?
A4. Engage a Japan-based firm like Origami at the filing stage to pre-screen for unity and propose optimal claim sets.

Contact Information

6-23-4, Jingumae, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo-to 150-0001, Japan
+81-50-6875-3628
info@origamipatentfirm.com
https://origamipatentfirm.com/en/origami-international-patent-firm-assist-pct-or-paris-extension-into-jp/
*We would appreciate it if you could set up the domain for @origamipatentfirm.com, regarding the above your email address. If not, our email might end up in the spam folder.

FYI: Competitive Fee Schedule

Compared to a typical Japanese patent firm, Origami International Patent Firm offers highly competitive and transparent pricing tailored to overseas applicants.

This means that applicants working with Origami can typically expect 50–70% total cost savings compared to conventional Japanese firms, without compromising on quality, responsiveness, or technical accuracy.

Item For Patent Application Typical Firm (Service Fee) Origami Firm (Service Fee)
PCT or Paris Extension into JP or
Regular Filing in JP 		100,000 JPY All-inclusive price 43,000 JPY
(about 300 USD)
Filing an amendment based on Art. 19 30,000 JPY
Filing an amendment based on Art. 34 30,000 JPY
Filing a voluntary amendment 30,000 JPY
Claiming priority to one or more prior applications 10,000- JPY
Filing a request for examination 20,000 JPY 15,000 JPY
(about 100 USD)
PPH (excluding a request for examination) 80,000 JPY 60,000 JPY
(about 400 USD)
Filing a priority certificate in the absense of DAS code (*1) 20,000 JPY 15,000 JPY
(about 100 USD)
Translation of each procedural document (*2) 40 JPY/EN Word 30 JPY/EN Word
Response to an Office action (*3) 200,000 or more JPY Workload A: 40,000 JPY (*4)
Workload B: 80,000 JPY (*4)
Workload C: 120,000 JPY (*4)
Workload D: 160,000 JPY (*4)
Workload E: 180,000- JPY (*4)
Filing a Divisional Application 80,000 JPY 60,000 JPY
(about 400 USD)
Reporting a notice of allowance and paying the registration fee (1st to 3rd year in lump sum as registration fee) 50,000 JPY 28,000 JPY
(about 180 USD)
Payment of annuity 30,000 JPY 15,000 JPY
(about 100 USD)

*1. Regarding "Filing a priority certificate in the absence of DAS code", the certificate and DAS code are issued by the Patent Office after a precedent application was filed. Furthermore, one of them is required only when you claim a priority based on the precedent application in Japan. In other words, they are not required if there is no precedent application.

*2. Regarding "Translation of each procedural document", we will charge a translation fee regarding specifications including a description, claims, abstract, and drawings which are needed to file with the JPO. Regarding an office action, we will charge the translation fee thereof if you request us to translate it from Japanese to English for studying it on your side. In other words, we do not charge when you prefer not to translate the office action.

*3. Response to an office action issued by the JPO, an amendment and argument are prepared for responding to it and for arguing that the concerned application should be registered. Please note that the office action is not necessarily issued, it is issued only when there is the reason for rejection regarding a registration of a Patent/Design/Trademark application, the reason being Novelty, Inventive Step, and the like. In other words, we do not charge when there is no office action or when you prefer not to respond to the issued office action.

*4. Regarding our service fee for responding to the office action, it is specified based on from "Workload A" to "Workload E". These workloads depend on degree of difficulty for overcoming the reason for rejection and/or the number of the reasons described therein.
The "Workload A" is, for example, a task of deleting a part of claims;
The "Workload B" is, for example, a task of preparing a comment for overcoming the office action;
The "Workload C" is, for example, a task of preparing and filing a response to the office action;
The "Workload D" is, for example, a task of preparing a comment for overcoming the office action and filing a response thereto; and
The "Workload E" is, for example, an additional or extra task in addition to the "Workload D".

Related posts

How to Communicate Effectively with Your Japanese Patent Attorney for PCT National Phase Entry

Entering the Japanese national phase from a PCT international application involves strict deadlines, legal formalities, and most importantly, consistent and effective communication with your Japanese patent attorney. For foreign applicants, navigating these complexities can be stressful—especially when operating in a different language, legal framework, and time zone. This article provides practical strategies for successful collaboration and explains how Origami International Patent Firm makes the process smooth, cost-effective, and globally accessible. Why Clear Communication Is Essential in the Japanese PCT National Phase Effective communication with your Japanese attorney is critical for a timely and compliant national phase entry. Japan Patent Office (JPO) procedures are highly formalized, and misunderstandings—even minor—can lead to delays, additional fees, or even forfeiture of rights. Issues such as missed deadlines, mistranslation of claims, or incomplete filings often stem from unclear communication. Furthermore, communication challenges can be amplified when applicants are unfamiliar with the legal terminology or procedural requirements specific to Japan. The role of your Japanese representative is not only to execute filings but also to interpret legal language, translate and localize your patent documents appropriately, and ensure that all actions are in line with JPO expectations. Working with Origami: Our Communication Framework Initial Contact: Once we receive your instruction, we promptly provide a formal quotation and workflow plan that outlines all major milestones, deadlines, and required […]

Winning Strategies from Experienced Patent JP Attorneys

1. Introduction Securing patent rights in Japan requires more than simply complying with formalities—it demands strategic foresight. The Japan Patent Office (JPO) has its own expectations, procedures, and standards that may differ significantly from those of the USPTO, EPO, or CNIPA. For foreign applicants, success often hinges on whether your chosen patent attorney understands how to navigate Japan’s unique system effectively. In this article, we introduce field-tested strategies used by experienced patent JP attorneys. These approaches help foreign applicants avoid costly delays, streamline prosecution, and ultimately strengthen their patents in Japan. Whether you're filing via the PCT route, the Paris Convention, or directly in Japan, this guide will help you position your applications for success from the outset. We also highlight the services of Origami International Patent Firm, whose cost-effective, technology-driven, and legally sound services make them a leading choice for global clients entering Japan. 2. Overview of the Japanese Patent Environment The JPO operates under a rigorous and highly structured examination framework. Applications are reviewed in accordance with the Japanese Patent Act, and the JPO is known for its detailed formalities review, strict interpretation of novelty and inventive step, and high standards of translation fidelity. Understanding this environment is essential to crafting a winning strategy. Substantive Examination: The JPO places great emphasis on clarity of claims, enabling disclosure, and […]

Practical Tips for Handling Multiple Dependent Claims in Japan

Introduction Japan's patent system has specific restrictions regarding multiple dependent claims. Unlike the practice in the EPO where both multiple and multiple-multiple dependent claims are generally accepted, Japan prohibits multiple dependent claims that depend on other multiple dependent claims. This creates unique challenges for applicants entering the Japanese national phase from a PCT application. Why It Matters for PCT Applicants Many PCT applications are originally drafted with claim formats acceptable under USPTO or EPO practice. If these claim sets include multiple dependent claims that cross-reference other multiple dependent claims (i.e., "multi-multi" format), they will likely receive a rejection under Japanese practice (Article 36(6)(iv) of the Patent Act). How to Detect Problematic Claims Carefully examine claim dependencies during national phase entry. Japan considers the following formats compliant and non-compliant: Compliant Example: Claim 3 depends on any one of Claims 1 or 2. Non-Compliant Example (multi-multi): Claim 4 depends on Claim 2 or 3, and both Claims 2 and 3 are also multiple dependent claims. This structure is not acceptable in Japan. Reference: See the JPO’s Multi-Multi Claim Checker Guide and our Japanese article here for further clarification. Strategies to Address Compliance Rewriting Claims Before Entry: Amend claim sets at national phase entry by breaking multi-multi dependencies into independent singly dependent claims. Example: Instead of "Claim 5 depends on Claims 2 or […]

Comments on this post

No comments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA


Trackbacks and Pingbacks on this post

No trackbacks.

TrackBack URL