JAPAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Junichi Ueda, Etsuko Hara, Nobuto Shirane, Takahiro Hayase, Yutaka Shimoo and Miki Goto, Anderson Mori & Tomotsune
• the scope of persons who are aware of the con - tents of the relevant documents is limited to those who need to know them (eg, persons who are, or were, responsible for consulting with attorneys on behalf of the company); and • the company submits an application form for the determination procedure as well as a privilege log that states an outline of the relevant documents. A Supreme Court decision confirmed that, even where the alleged price cartel occurred outside Japan, the Antimonopoly Act can apply if the cartel impedes Certain types of unilateral conduct and economic dependency are prohibited as private monopolisation and unfair trade practices under the Antimonopoly Act. Private monopolisation is defined as any conduct that excludes or controls the business activities of other enterprises, thereby causing a substantial restraint of competition in any relevant market. The methods of enforcement against private monopolisation include: • cease-and-desist orders; • surcharge payment orders; and • criminal punishment. Various types of conduct are designated as unfair trade practices, such as: • refusal to trade; • unjustly low-priced sales; • resale price restrictions; and • abuse of superior bargaining positions. competition in the Japanese market. 6.4 Abuse of Dominant Position Under economic dependency regulations, abuse of superior bargaining positions is the major type of mis - conduct to be considered, and enterprises are pro - hibited from imposing terms and conditions that are disadvantageous to other enterprises by unjustly lev - eraging their superior position over other enterprises. All types of unfair trade practices can be subject to cease-and-desist orders. However, the surcharge payment order and/or criminal penalties are only applicable to certain types of unfair trade practices.
For conduct to be considered as private monopolisa - tion, it is necessary to prove that it results in a sub - stantial restraint of competition. On the other hand, a tendency to impede competition is all that is required for conduct to fall within the scope of unfair trade prac - tices. In other words, it can be said that a higher thresh - old (regarding detrimental effect) needs to be satisfied in order to show the existence of private monopolisa - tion, in comparison to unfair trade practices. Although extraterritorial applicability of regulations on private monopolisation and unfair trade practices is not such a prominent topic of discussion, it never - theless appears the same approach is taken towards unreasonable restraint of trade as is likely to be taken in relation to private monopolisation. The commitment procedure, which is a scheme for voluntarily resolving suspected violations via mutual consent between the JFTC and the relevant enter - prise, came into effect in December 2018. As of June 2026, 27 cases regarding private monopolisation and unfair trade practices have been resolved through the commitment procedure. The Intellectual Property Basic Act of Japan recog - nises the importance of IP protection as well as the idea of creating a vibrant economy and society by creating new IP. In Japan, IP is mainly protected by: • the Patent Act; • the Utility Model Act; • the Trademark Act; • the Design Act; • the Plant Variety Protection and Seed Act; • the Act on the Circuit Layout of Semiconductor Integrated Circuits; • the Copyright Act; and • the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. Patent rights, etc, are granted by registering with the Japan Patent Office. The Copyright Act, on the other hand, protects copyrights without requiring any spe - cial formalities. Although there is no property right 7. Intellectual Property 7.1 Patents
522 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook