fusion
1- From the perspectives, respectively, of Fusion and Mitsubishi, What is the essence of the problem?
The essence of the problem, from Fusion’s perspective, is that the Japanese patent system favored Japanese companies over foreign companies. The main difference that enable this conclusion are the restricted breath of patent coverage in Japan, which incentivizes a large pool of applications for patents and the feasibility of inventing around with limited efforts. Also the long lead-time of the application process, plus the mandatory disclosure when filing the application, allow other companies to early understand the innovation and claim against the validity of the patent system. Fusion believed that all Mitsubishi’s innovations were based on the underlying technology already developed by Fusion and covered by their patent filing. Fusion believed that the spherical bulb for increasing the speed of the turn on and resonant technology were either obvious or did not aggregate any value to the innovation.
Mitsubishi, on the other hand, believed that the essential problem was that Fusion did not devote a proper strategy for the Japanese patent law. Based on the Japanese patent law, Mitsubishi believed that their technology was completely different compared to Fusion’s technology, mainly driven by the resonant technology and spherical bulb that Mitsubishi used. Mitsubishi believed that using non-resonant technology and linear bulb made the product different, at least in the Japanese patent environment.
2- What does each party want from the other?
Japanese patent office granted the patent to Mitsubishi for the invention of the microwave lamp technology using a spherical bulb and resonant technology. This incentivized Mitsubishi to ask Fusion for a licensing agreement that forces Fusion to pay either a one-time payment or a royalty fee for the use of their technology in Japan. Mitsubishi believed that the technology was invented by them, as the Japanese patent office
The essence of the problem, from Fusion’s perspective, is that the Japanese patent system favored Japanese companies over foreign companies. The main difference that enable this conclusion are the restricted breath of patent coverage in Japan, which incentivizes a large pool of applications for patents and the feasibility of inventing around with limited efforts. Also the long lead-time of the application process, plus the mandatory disclosure when filing the application, allow other companies to early understand the innovation and claim against the validity of the patent system. Fusion believed that all Mitsubishi’s innovations were based on the underlying technology already developed by Fusion and covered by their patent filing. Fusion believed that the spherical bulb for increasing the speed of the turn on and resonant technology were either obvious or did not aggregate any value to the innovation.
Mitsubishi, on the other hand, believed that the essential problem was that Fusion did not devote a proper strategy for the Japanese patent law. Based on the Japanese patent law, Mitsubishi believed that their technology was completely different compared to Fusion’s technology, mainly driven by the resonant technology and spherical bulb that Mitsubishi used. Mitsubishi believed that using non-resonant technology and linear bulb made the product different, at least in the Japanese patent environment.
2- What does each party want from the other?
Japanese patent office granted the patent to Mitsubishi for the invention of the microwave lamp technology using a spherical bulb and resonant technology. This incentivized Mitsubishi to ask Fusion for a licensing agreement that forces Fusion to pay either a one-time payment or a royalty fee for the use of their technology in Japan. Mitsubishi believed that the technology was invented by them, as the Japanese patent office