JAPAN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Hideaki Kobayashi, Hirofumi Tada, Hiroyuki Kimura and Hiroyuki Ohno, Ohno & Partners
Comments The Google Case is the first judgment in Japan to grant an injunction based on an SEP and thus has significant precedential value. On the other hand, the Google Case ruling placed particular emphasis on the defendant’s failure to comply with the court-initiated settlement negotiation, rather than the negotiation his- tory between the parties only. Thus, it would not be easy to obtain an injunction based solely on negotia- tion between the parties. It should be noted that the Google Case was settled while pending at the High Court, so the standard established in the Apple Case regarding “willingness” remains unchanged. Following these judgments, the Tokyo District Court released a “Proceedings Model” or “Litigation Guide- line” for SEP infringement litigation. Details will be dis- cussed below, but proceedings conducted according to this model are expected to facilitate early, court-led settlements on a global basis. If a defendant does not engage sincerely in settlement discussions, it is anticipated that an injunction may be granted. A New Era of SEP Enforcement in Japan: Litigation and Mediation Tokyo District Court’s new SEP litigation guideline Following the significant recent SEP-related decisions, the Tokyo District Court introduced a guideline for SEP litigation in January 2026, focusing on effective and quick procedures to achieve a global SEP settlement. Under this guideline, both parties are expected to engage in rigorous negotiations for a global SEP set- tlement before the court. They are required to assert and prove their detailed position on global FRAND rates in their initial pleadings (complaint and answer). They are also expected to negotiate on the global set- tlement and agree on conditions other than the global FRAND rates at an early stage of the case. Then, the negotiations will focus on the global FRAND rates. Of course, the settlement negotiations are voluntary. Also, theoretically, the Tokyo District Court may not have the power to decide on foreign SEPs. Never- theless, SEP litigation before the Tokyo District Court could be an extremely effective way of resolving glob- al SEP disputes.
This is because the parties’ actions during negotia- tions before the court have a significant impact on the court’s determination of willingness or unwillingness. When the parties are unable to reach a settlement, the court requires them to submit arguments focusing on willingness and unwillingness based on the negotia- tion processes, including those after the litigation is filed. The court will then decide whether an implemen- tor is willing or unwilling, considering these factors. If an implementor does not co-operate with the court’s attempts at settlement, this may result in a decision that they are unwilling, meaning an injunction and sub- stantial damages being granted. In particular, the guideline requires an implementor to disclose the number of accused products sold and the sales amount at a very early stage, in order to facilitate a settlement. Failure to do so may be perceived as unwillingness, depending on the circumstances, and could result in an injunction grant, as in the Google Case. Therefore, while settlement negotiations are voluntary, the parties rigorously negotiate to reach a global settlement. There is some leeway on how strictly the court requires the parties to follow this guideline, but this guideline provides robust dispute resolution procedures. Tokyo District Court’s new SEP judicial mediation guideline The Tokyo District Court also introduced a new guide- line for SEP judicial mediation, which also targets global FRAND rates. Although mediation is voluntary, it is linked to litigation, making it an effective means of dispute resolution. A panel of three experts will handle the mediation, including a judge from the Intellectual Property Divi- sion of the Tokyo District Court and two attorneys with extensive IP experience. The guideline adopts very quick procedures, with the aim of concluding the three hearings within six months. Both parties must submit their global FRAND rate pro- posals prior to the first hearing. As with the SEP litiga- tion guideline, an opponent is required to disclose the number of target products sold and the sales amount. At the first hearing, the global FRAND rates will be
175 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook