关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

日本

JP015-j

返回

2008 (Kyo) 36, Minshu Vol.63, No. 1

Date of Judgment: January 27, 2009

 

Issuing Authority: Supreme Court

 

Level of the Issuing Authority: Final Instance

 

Type of Procedure: Judicial (Civin( �b>

 

Subject Matter: Patent (Inventions)

 

Main text of the judgment (decision):

 

1.The decision in prior instance is quashed, and the decision in first instance is revoked.


2.This case is remanded to the Tokyo District Court.

 

Reasons:

 

Reasons for Appeal argued by the appeal counsels, ONO Seiji, et al.

1. The point at issue in this case is whether or not it is allowable to file a petition for a protective order under Article 105-4, paragraph (1) of the Patent Act in a case pertaining to a petition for an order of provisional disposition to seek an injunction against the infringement of a patent right, etc.

2. According to the case records, the outline of the case is as follows.

(1) A filed a petition for an order of provisional disposition to seek an injunction, etc. against the import and sale of LCD television sets and LCD monitors and other acts conducted by the appellant, alleging that such acts infringe A’s patent right (the case pertaining to this petition shall hereinafter be referred to as the “Provisional Disposition Case”). In the Provisional Disposition Case, a hearing was held on the date on which the appellant, who is the obligor, was able to attend.


(2) The appellant filed a petition for a protective order under Article 105-4, paragraph (1) of the Patent Act against the appellees, who were A’s agents or assistants in court, in order to protect the appellant’s trade secrets, alleging that these trade secrets were stated in the brief and other documents that the appellant planned to submit in the Provisional Disposition Case (this petition for a protective order shall hereinafter be referred to as the “Petition”).


3. The court of prior instance dismissed the Petition without prejudice, holding that since “litigation concerning the infringement of a patent right or exclusive license” prescribed in the main clause of the principal part of Article 105-4, paragraph (1) of the Patent Act does not include a provisional disposition case to seek an injunction against the infringement of a patent right, it is unallowable to file a petition for a protective order in the Provisional Disposition Case.

4. However, we cannot affirm the determination of the court of prior instance mentioned above, on the following grounds.
In litigation concerning the infringement of a patent right or exclusive license, if any trade secrets are included in the brief or documentary evidence that are planned to be submitted to the court, it could happen that the party who holds these trade secrets, for fear that the trade secrets will be used by the other party for purposes other than the purpose of conducting the suit or be disclosed to a third party, which would cause hindrance to the party’s business activities involving the trade secrets, refrains from showing those trade secrets at court and ends in failing to make sufficient allegations and proof. It can be construed that in order to avoid such situation, the Patent Act provides for the protective order system (Article 105-4 to Article 105-6, Article 200-2, and Article 201 of said Act) and prohibits, by a protective order with criminal punishment, such trade secrets from being used for purposes other than the purpose of conducting the suit or disclosed to a party other than the one who has received the protective order.
A provisional disposition case to seek an injunction against the infringement of a patent right or exclusive license addresses a specific issue, i.e. whether or not an order of provisional disposition is necessary, which is not disputed in a case on the merits. However, since other issues are addressed both in the provisional disposition case and the case on the merits, there is no difference between these cases in that the party who holds the trade secrets is likely to face the above-mentioned situation, and the protective order system cannot be deemed to accept this. Even if we construe that a petition for a protective order may be filed in such provisional disposition case, this construction cannot be judged to be contrary to the features of a provisional disposition case, such as that the case should be handled promptly.

Under the Patent Act, the term “litigation” is not only used to refer to a case on the merits but it also includes a civil preservation case in some provisions (Article 54, paragraph (2) and Article 168, paragraph (2) of said Act). In light of the purpose of the protective order system described above, it is appropriate to construe that a provisional disposition case to seek an injunction against the infringement of a patent right or exclusive license falls within the category of “litigation concerning the infringement of a patent right or exclusive license” prescribed in the main clause of the principal part of Article 105-4, paragraph (1) of the Patent Act, and it is allowable to file a petition for a protective order in such provisional disposition case.


5. The determination of the court of prior instance that goes against this reasoning contains a violation of laws and regulations which apparently affects the judgment. The appeal counsels’ arguments are well-grounded, and the decision in prior instance should inevitably be quashed. We have decided to revoke the decision in first instance and remand the case to the court of first instance for further examination.

Therefore, the decision has been rendered in the form of the main text by the unanimous consent of the Justices.

 

(This translation is provisional and subject to revision.)