Adoption of IT in Courts (Motoki KATO)
There was an interesting court precedent [1], so I would like to introduce it.
The summary of the case is that X (plaintiff, appellant) in Osaka Prefecture, who entrusted research to Y (defendant, appellee) in Kobe City, filed a lawsuit in the Kobe District Court against Y, seeking damages based on default, on the grounds that P's invention belonging to Y was the result of the research, and that P's patent application for the invention violated Y's contractual obligation (obligation to consult) related to the research.
The trial court ruled that the invention could not be said to be the result of the research, but dismissed X's claim on the grounds that it could not be found that Y had breached the contractual obligation to consult.
On the other hand, in the appellate hearing heard by the Osaka High Court, the judgment was expected to be judged as a typological abstract judgment based on the description of the complaint, and whether or not the invention was a product obtained through the research was expected to be judged as a point of contention, and in order to make such a judgment, it was inevitable to make a judgment on the technical matters of whether the invention was included in the product of the research. And this judgment is based on Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Law, which states that "patent rights" and "lawsuits concerning ... Since the action should be interpreted to include an action concerning the right to receive a patent, and the action should be interpreted to include not only the case where the said right constitutes the content of the litigation, but also the case where it is related to the litigation or the cause of action and is categorically abstractly assumed to require an understanding of technical matters in the proceedings, the present lawsuit is subject to the provisions of Article 6 of the Act on "patent rights ... The original judgment handed down by the Kobe District Court was revoked on the grounds that it was exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Osaka District Court pursuant to Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the same Article.
Since the handling of research results is usually stipulated in contracts related to contract research and joint research, most disputes regarding the handling of research results related to contract research and joint research will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Tokyo District Court or the Osaka District Court under Article 6, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Civil Procedure Law. The judgment also refers to Article 20-2 of the Civil Procedure Code, which stipulates transfer, but since the same article requires the transfer to be "necessary to avoid significant damage or delay," it seems unlikely that the transfer will actually take place.
In this case, there will of course be parties and agents who are satisfied with having their disputes heard by a court that has a specialized handling system, but there will also be a certain number of people who feel inconvenienced by having to travel to Tokyo or Osaka.
However, as featured in last year's annual report Intellectual Property Law[2], the Reiwa 4th year Civil Procedure Law was revised[3]As a result, the use of IT in civil proceedings has progressed significantly. Specifically, it is mandatory to submit complaints online, procedures for preparing pleadings via web conference, oral argument deadlines, witness examinations, settlement dates, and digitization of litigation records. Therefore, the number of people who feel inconvenienced by having to travel to Tokyo and Osaka as mentioned above will decrease in the future.
The recent introduction of IT in civil proceedings will greatly lower the hurdles to hearing in remote courts, and it seems that it has the potential to trigger further changes. For example, lawsuits related to design rights, etc. are currently under competing jurisdiction[4], but in practice, most lawsuits are filed in the Tokyo District Court or Osaka District Court, so this may be the exclusive jurisdiction of both district courts as well as lawsuits related to patent rights. Going further, the Intellectual Property Division of the Osaka District High Court may be integrated into the Tokyo District Court and the Intellectual Property High Court, and intellectual property lawsuits will be handled collectively in Tokyo[5]. Alternatively, as part of the transfer of capital functions, the Intellectual Property Division of the Tokyo District Court will be integrated into the Osaka District Court, while the Intellectual Property Division of the Osaka High Court will be integrated into the Intellectual Property High Court, and the route of appeals related to intellectual property will be unified between the Osaka District Court and the Intellectual Property High Court[6].
In this way, the introduction of IT in civil proceedings can encourage the concentration of judicial resources. The extent to which the surplus generated by IT should be allocated to improving convenience and concentrating judicial resources will be an issue for the future.
In addition, from the viewpoint of the concentration of judicial resources, it is necessary to mention the Nakameguro Business Court, which opened in October last year. It has already been reported that the Intellectual Property Division, the Commercial Division, the Bankruptcy Division of the Tokyo District Court, and the Intellectual Property High Court have moved to the new government building in Nakameguro, positioning it as a "business court" that specializes in business-related litigation. And, as if to symbolize the concentration of judicial resources, within two weeks of the opening of the office, the Intellectual Property High Court handed down a judgment on a major joint case with the original trial as the Osaka District Court[7]. According to media reports, the Nakameguro Business Court is expected to promote more specialized hearings and speeding up trials, but it will be interesting to see how the Nakameguro Business Court operates and how it is evaluated.
On the other hand, there are certain limitations to the use of IT in civil proceedings. This is because the importance of examining witnesses and other evidence in front of the real thing remains unchanged. The information obtained by touching the real thing is incomparable to that obtained from text, images, and videos. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a thousand sees are worth a touch. However, this point may be dealt with by the circuit courts of medieval England, for example, by examining evidence in the court building of the court having jurisdiction over the defendant's place of residence[8].
More than ten years ago, I had the opportunity to visit the Intellectual Property Division of the Osaka District Court. At that time, I was led to the courtroom, and I was very surprised to see a large cultivator stained with mud in the corner of the courtroom. According to the explanation, it was an alleged infringement item as evidence, and it was difficult to put it because there was no place to put it, so it was left in court for the time being. An uninhabited courtroom with a large cultivator seemed to be a surreal picture, but a picture of a large cultivator watching the trial of a completely different case in the courtroom may be more surreal. The courtroom at Nakameguro Business Court is newly built, and the photos released show that it is clean, functional, and dignified, but I am unnecessarily worried about whether there is enough space in the government building to store evidence.
———————————————————————————-
[1] Osaka High Court Order 4, 9, 30 Reiwa 4 (Ne) 1273 Court Website
[2] "Annual Report on Intellectual Property Law 2022-2023" (Japan Hyoronsha, December 2022)
[3] Reiwa 4th Year Law No. 48
[4] Article 6-2 of the Civil Procedure Law
[5] It is still possible for the parties to agree to do so (Articles 11, 12, and 13, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Law).
[6] Even today, lawsuits regarding patent rights, etc., filed in the Osaka District Court are through this route (Article 6, Paragraph 3 of the Civil Procedure Law).
[7] Intellectual Property High Court Order 4, 10, 20 Reiwa 2 (Ne) No. 10024 Court Website
[8] Article 185(1) of the Civil Procedure Code
〈 Miki Kato (RC)〉
