Shin TOKII
Professional Experience
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (researcher)
FANGDA PARTNERS(Beijing)
NTT DATA 3C
Membership
Daiichi Tokyo Bar Association
Japan Patent Attorneys Association (JPAA)
Education
Peking University (Doctor of Law)
Hokkaido University, School of Law (J.D.)
Hitotsubashi University (B.A.)
TOINGAKUEN High School(science and mathematics department)
Practice Areas
Intellectual Property Law
China Practice
Languages
Japanese
English
Chinese
German
Articles (inclusive of co-authored articles)
1 Books
Shin Tokii, “Inventive Step in Patent Laws-Its Theoretical Implications and A Comparative Study of Japan,China, Germany, EPO and US-”, Shinzansha,2023
Yoshiyuki Tamura, Shin Tokii & Akihiro Sako“Practice Intellectual Property Law(Patent Law)” Shinzansha, 2020
Yoshiyuki Tamura & Shin Tokii “Logistics Intellectual Property Law(Patent Law)” Shinzansha, 2012
Yoshiyuki Tamura, Shin Tokii & Akihiro Sako“Practice Intellectual Property Law(Patent Law)” Shinzansha, 2020
Yoshiyuki Tamura & Shin Tokii “Logistics Intellectual Property Law(Patent Law)” Shinzansha, 2012
…..
2 Papers
“The Concept of Technical Prejudice in Patent Law,”Prof. Misao Shimizu the 70th Anniversary Essays:Toward the Future of Diversified Intellectual Property Litigation.
“Examining the Significance of Article 29(1) of the Patent Law: Why each item can be a cited invention of novelty and inventive step regardless of whether the inventor has actual access to the cited invention or not,” Prof. Yoshiyuki Tamura Sixtieth Anniversary Essays: A Journey in Intellectual Property Law and Policy Studies (2023, Kobundo), 192-206. pp.
“Revival of Technical Contribution Theory” Annual of Industrial Property Law Vol44. Inventive Step, 69-90P(2021)
“Trend of A Concept, “Suggestion” In Determining Inventive Step with Some Implications on the Relationship between Development of Search Technology on Internet and Inventive Step“,Information Network Law Review Vol.19 (2020)
“Three-Step Metohod in the Patent Law of the People’Public of China with Recent Tendency of China-US Inventive Step Judgment and Some Future Prospects“ AIPPI VOL.65 No12 14-29P(2020)
“The Concept of “Obvious to try” in US Patent Law – and its Similarity to the Concept of “Limited Experimentation” in the Patent Law if the People’s Republic of China-“ AIPPI VOL.65 No2 27-39P(2020)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(1)” Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.54,55-90P(2019)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(2)” Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.55,205-225P(2020)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(3)”Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.56, 103-122P(2020)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(4)”Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.59, 165-253P(2021)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(5)”Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.60, 115-170P(2021)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(6)”Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.60, 111-140P (2021)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(7)”Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.60, 201-264P (2022)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(8)”Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.63, 93-140P (2022)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(9)”Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.65, 212-285P (2022)
“Trend in Determining Inventive Step and Its Applications in Japan” Private LawVOL.13 No.1, 212-285P(2016) (written in Chinese)
“Trend in Determining Inventive Step and Its Applications(1)” Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.41,125-177P(2013)
“Trend in Determining Inventive Step and Its Applications(2)” Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.42,173-239P(2013)
“Status Quo of Claim Interpretation: A Focus on Restrictive Interpretation” Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.40,1-32P(2012)
“Burden of Proof to Substance the Title to an Invention and the Sufficiency of Disclosure in the Patent Invalidation Procedure” Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.38,87-118P(2011)
“To What Extent Can Errors in the Description be Corrected?” Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.24,149-178P(2009)
“Examining the Significance of Article 29(1) of the Patent Law: Why each item can be a cited invention of novelty and inventive step regardless of whether the inventor has actual access to the cited invention or not,” Prof. Yoshiyuki Tamura Sixtieth Anniversary Essays: A Journey in Intellectual Property Law and Policy Studies (2023, Kobundo), 192-206. pp.
“Revival of Technical Contribution Theory” Annual of Industrial Property Law Vol44. Inventive Step, 69-90P(2021)
“Trend of A Concept, “Suggestion” In Determining Inventive Step with Some Implications on the Relationship between Development of Search Technology on Internet and Inventive Step“,Information Network Law Review Vol.19 (2020)
“Three-Step Metohod in the Patent Law of the People’Public of China with Recent Tendency of China-US Inventive Step Judgment and Some Future Prospects“ AIPPI VOL.65 No12 14-29P(2020)
“The Concept of “Obvious to try” in US Patent Law – and its Similarity to the Concept of “Limited Experimentation” in the Patent Law if the People’s Republic of China-“ AIPPI VOL.65 No2 27-39P(2020)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(1)” Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.54,55-90P(2019)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(2)” Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.55,205-225P(2020)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(3)”Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.56, 103-122P(2020)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(4)”Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.59, 165-253P(2021)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(5)”Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.60, 115-170P(2021)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(6)”Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.60, 111-140P (2021)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(7)”Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.60, 201-264P (2022)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(8)”Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.63, 93-140P (2022)
“Statistical Analysis of Judicial Decisions on Inventive Step and Its Theoretical Implications: A Comparative Study of Japan, China, Germany, EPO and US(9)”Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.65, 212-285P (2022)
“Trend in Determining Inventive Step and Its Applications in Japan” Private LawVOL.13 No.1, 212-285P(2016) (written in Chinese)
“Trend in Determining Inventive Step and Its Applications(1)” Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.41,125-177P(2013)
“Trend in Determining Inventive Step and Its Applications(2)” Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.42,173-239P(2013)
“Status Quo of Claim Interpretation: A Focus on Restrictive Interpretation” Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.40,1-32P(2012)
“Burden of Proof to Substance the Title to an Invention and the Sufficiency of Disclosure in the Patent Invalidation Procedure” Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.38,87-118P(2011)
“To What Extent Can Errors in the Description be Corrected?” Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal VOL.24,149-178P(2009)
Lectures
Symposium at Japan Association of Industrial Property Law (Nov.2020)
Seminar at Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (in Munich in2019, English)
Symposium at Beijing Institute of Technology ( in Beijing in 2015, Chinese)
The 3rd China-Japan-Korea Intellectual Property Law Seminar( in Wuhan in 2013, Chinese)