(1) After a patent application is laid open, the applicant may give a person who has for business purposes practiced the invention claimed in the application, a written warning stating that a patent application has been filed for the invention.
(2) A patent applicant may claim compensation equivalent to an amount to which he or she is reasonably entitled for practicing the patented invention, from a person who has practiced for business purposes the invention claimed in the patent application, after receipt of a written warning given under paragraph (1), or knowing that the patent application for the invention has been laid open under Article 64, for the period from the time of the written warning, or the time he or she becomes aware thereof until the time the grant of the patent is registered. <Amended on Jan. 8, 2019>
(3) The right to claim compensation under paragraph (2) may be exercised only after the grant of the patent on the invention claimed in the patent application is registered.
(4) The exercise of the right to claim compensation under paragraph (2) shall not affect the practice of the patent.
(5) Articles 127, 129, and 132 of this Act and Articles 760 and 766 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the exercise of the right to claim compensation under paragraph (2). In such cases, "date when the injured party or his or her legal representative becomes aware of damage and of the identity of the person who has inflicted the damage" in Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act shall be construed as "date when the grant of the patent right is registered".
(6) If any of the following applies to a patent application after it has been laid open under Article 64, the right to claim compensation under paragraph (2) shall be deemed never to have occurred: <Amended on Feb. 29, 2016>
1. If the patent application is abandoned, invalidated, or withdrawn;
2. If a decision to reject the patent application under Article 62 becomes final and conclusive;
3. If a decision to revoke a patent under Article 132-13 (1) becomes final and conclusive;
4. If a trial ruling invalidating the relevant patent under Article 133 (excluding cases specified in Article 133 (1) 4) becomes final and conclusive.[This Article Wholly Amended on Jun. 11, 2014]