inevitably necessary to admit Product-by-Process claims (PBP claims). To make
them effective, their requirements and limits should be clarified, and the
methods to define the product and acknowledge the identity of the product in
their practical exercise should be studied. The author has suggested the
following two view points to examine inventions, 1) considering the difficulty
to predict an invention from the tentative principles and 2) categorizing
inventions into the physicalobject type and the material type. Based on these
two viewpoints, this paper will show the case where the PBP claims are
inevitable. From the above and its opposite side, the criteria for the PBP
claims will be proposed by analyzing the category of inventions, requirements
of manufacturing process steps and the limits of admitting the PBP claims. The
following theory will be composed of: the scope of the PBP claims should
include their identical product to the product described in the claim through
the process of the patent applications and infringement cases because of the
legal stability. Then, the methods of determining the time to define the
product by way of structure or properties and acknowledging the identity of the
product, in the practical exercise of the claims will be suggested.
Cite this paper
Kageyama, K. (2014). Necessity, Criteria (Requirements or Limits) and Acknowledgement of Product Identity of Claims for Product Described by Its Manufacturing Process (Product-by-Process Claims). Beijing Law Review, 5,
114-129. doi: 10.4236/blr.2014.52011
 Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc. (2009). 566F.3d1282 (Fed.Cir.2009); 90U.S.P.Q. 2d1769.
 Grant, G., & Smyth, D. (2010). The Protection Conferred by Product-by-Process Claim. European Intellectual Property Review, 32, 635-642.
 HanreiJiho (1999). No. 1671, 137-144. (“HanreiJiho” and “Hanrei Times” Are the Names of a Japanese Case Law Journal).
 Hanrei Times (1999). No. 990, 244-251. (“HanreiJiho” and “Hanrei Times” Are the Names of a Japanese Case Law Journal).
 HanreiJiho (2012). No. 2144, 51-80 (“HanreiJiho” and “Hanrei Times” Are the Names of a Japanese Case Law Journal).
 Kageyama, K. (2012). The Practice of Recognizing an Inventor/Joint Inventors and Calculation of Contribution Ratios among Joint Inventors. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 7, 590-603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jps090
 Kirin-Amgen Inc v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd. (2004). UKHL 46. Japanese Translation in “December 2004 edition of European IP News”.
 Macedo, C. R. (2009). Infringement of Product-by-Process Claims in US Clarified. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 4, 608-611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpp119
 Nanjo, M. (2002). Construction of Rights Based on Product-by-Process Claims. Patent, 55, 21-28.
 Shitara, R. (2013). Studies on Acknowledgment of Content and Claim Construction of Product-by-Process Claim—In Response to the Decision of Intellectual Property High Court Special Division on January 27, 2012. Legal Principles and Proposal on Intellectual Properties; Memoirs of Celebration in Honor of Former Judge Toshiaki Makino’s Eightieth Birthday. (Nobuhiro Nakayama, Hiroshi Saito, and Toshiaki Imuraed. Seirinshoin), 295.