Copyright Date

October 27, 2021

Case

2021 (Ne) 10048

CourtIntellectual Property High
Court, First Division

number- A case in which the court determined whether the copyright (right of reproduction
and adaptation right) of a work related to a workbook explaining methods oforganizing a meeting was infringed or not.
Case type: Injunction, etc. against an act of copyright infringement
Result: Appeal dismissed
References: Article 2, paragraph (1), item (i) and item (xv), Article 21, Article 27, andArticle 112, paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the Copyright Act
Judgment in prior instance: Tokyo District Court, 2019 (Wa) 4521, rendered on March
26, 2021
Summary of the Judgment
1. This is a case where the Appellant Company alleged that the acts of the Appellees toprovide workshops and consultations on meetings using the Defendant's Resumes fallunder infringement of the copyright (right of reproduction and adaptation right) of awork related to the Plaintiff's Workbook held by the Appellant Company and theAppellant Company sought an injunction against the reproduction and distribution of
the Defendant's Resumes and destruction of the Defendant's Resumes based on Article
112, paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the Copyright Act.
The court of prior instance dismissed the claim of the Appellant Company because
there are no grounds for the claim. Dissatisfied with this, the Appellants filed appeals
with the court.
2. In this judgment, the court held as outlined below, determined that the judgment inprior instance was appropriate, and dismissed the appeals.
(1) The Copyright Act defines that a work means a creatively produced expression ofthoughts or sentiments that falls within a literary, academic, artistic, or musical domain(Article 2, paragraph (1), item (i) of the Copyright Act) and that reproduction means
the physical replication of a work through printing, photography, or copying, throughthe recording of sound or visuals, or in any other way (item (xv) of said paragraph).
Therefore, reproduction of a work (Article 21 of the same Act) is construed to mean an
act of physical replication of the creatively produced expression depending on the work.
In addition, adaptation of a work (Article 27 of the same Act) is construed to be an
act depending on an existing work with the following aims: to maintain the identity ofa creatively produced expression that is an essential feature of the expression, to addicorrections, increases and decreases, changes, etc. to a specific expression, and to
express new thoughts or sentiments creatively, and thereby to create another work sothat a person who comes into contact with it can directly feel the creatively produced
expression of an existing work.
According to the above understanding, in order to say that the Defendant's Resumes
fall under a reproduction or adaptation of a work related to the Plaintiff 's Workbook, it
is reasonable to construe that there are common expressions between the Plaintiff 's
Workbook and the Defendant's Resumes and the expressions are creatively produced
expressions, in other words, there must be common creative expressions. At the sametime, in cases where only ideas or other parts that are not expressions are common to
the Plaintiff's Workbook and the Defendant's Resumes and where the common
expressions are ordinary expressions, it is construed that the Defendant 's Resumes do
not fall under a reproduction or adaptation of the Plaintiff's Workbook.
(2) Plaintiff's Statement Part 6 and Defendant's Statement Part 6
The part of the Plaintiff's Workbook in question and the part of the Defendant's
Resumes in question share the point that they are statements describing that theparticipants in a meeting "share problems" "as a team," create "roles," and acquire "aplan" and have the "passion" "to satisfy" the participants.
However, the aforementioned common parts are the results to be acquired as a goal
to be achieved through the meeting and absolutely represent ideas related to the meansof acquiring the results, as a whole, but are not expressions by themselves.
In addition, Plaintiff's Statement Part 6 states in the first sentence that "thesemembers will share problems, establish a common goal, and share roles and create
commitments as a high-performance management team" as a means of acquiring theresults, and then it states in the second sentence that "thereby, achieve the goal, andacquire a plan and passion to satisfy stakeholders and these members" as the results tobe acquired. It is only a combination of plain terms that can recognize relationship, suchas "as a team," "share problems," "common," "roles," "to satisfy," "passion," etc. ingeneral order and they are commonplace. The structures of the first and second
sentences are normally used and commonplace, such as connecting means to the results,
etc., and it cannot be said that they are creative. Then, concerning the expression pa rts
in Plaintiff's Statement Part 6, "share problems, establish a common goal, share rolesand create commitments," and "achieve the goal, and acquire a plan and passion tosatisfy," and the expression parts in Defendant's Statement Part 6, "share a problem,
create a common will, and create a role, assignment, and action plan to achieve thewill," "to acquire a structure and plan to continue growing and to generate a union andiipassion in order to satisfy," it cannot be said that they share creatively produced
expressions.
Based on the above, the common parts of Defendant's Statement Part 6 andPlaintiff's Statement Part 6 cannot be said to be expressions or creatively produced
expressions. Therefore, it cannot be found that Defendant's Statement Part 6 falls undera reproduction or adaptation of Plaintiff's Statement Part 6.
(3) Structure of the Plaintiff's Workbook as a whole and structure of the Defendant's
Resumes as a whole
The structure of the Plaintiff's Workbook as a whole and the structure of the
Defendant's Resumes as a whole share the point that the following items: [i]confirmation of meeting rules and objectives; [ii] confirmation of the results to beacquired; [iii] confirmation of what has been achieved by today; [iv] identification ofproblems and concerns; [v] creation of strategic focuses (establishment of goals); [vi]clarification of roles (ways to achieve the goals, clarification of persons in charge andresponsibilities); [vii] establishment of an action plan (commitment); and [viii] problem
resolution, are selected and are arranged almost in the same order.
However, the aforementioned common parts absolutely represent ideas about theitems and order of implementation in a meeting, but are not found to be expressions.
Based on the above, it cannot be found that the structure of the Defendant's Resumes
as a whole falls under a reproduction or adaptation of the structure of the Plaintiff's
Workbook as a whole.

iii

Judgment rendered on October 27, 2021
2021(Ne)10048, Case of appeal for injunction against copyright infringement(Court of prior instance: Tokyo District Court, 2019(Wa)4521)
Date of conclusion of oral argument: September 13, 2021
Judgment
Appellant: SUGOIKAIGI LLC(hereinafter referred to as "Appellant Company")
Appellant X(hereinafter referred to as "Appellant X")

Appellee: Vanguard Management Co., Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as "Appellee Vanguard")
Appellee Y(hereinafter referred to as "Appellee Y")

Appellee: Samurai Vision, Inc..
(hereinafter referred to as "Appellee Samurai Vision")

Main text
1. All of the appeals shall be dismissed.
2. The Appellants shall bear the cost of the appeals.
Facts and reasonsNo. 1 Object of the appeals
1. Appellant Company(1) The judgment in prior instance shall be rescinded.
(2) A. The Appellees shall not reproduce and distribute the documents indicated in 1
through 8 of Attachment 1 "List of the Defendant's Resumes" of the judgment in priorinstance that contain the statements that are indicated in the "Defendant's Statement
Part" column of Attachment 2 "Resume Comparison Table" of the judgment in prior1

instance.
B. The Appellees shall destroy the documents indicated in 1 through 8 of Attachment 1"List of the Defendant's Resumes" of the judgment in prior instance that contain thestatements that are indicated in the "Defendant's Statement Part" column of Attachment
2 "Resume Comparison Table" of the judgment in prior instance.
C. Appellee Vanguard and Appellee Samurai Vision shall not use the expression "Whenmeetings change, the company changes without fail!"
D. The Appellees shall not use or disclose the know-hows stated in the "Know-Hows"
column of Attachment 3 "Comparison Table of Know-Hows" of the judgment in priorinstance.
E. Appellee Vanguard and Appellee Samurai Vision shall delete the videos indicated in
1 and 2 of Attachment 4 "List of Posted Videos" of the judgment in prior instance.
F. The Appellees shall jointly and severally pay to the Appellant Company 11,000 yen
and an amount accrued thereon at 5% per annum for the period from August 28, 2018
until the completion of the payment.
G. The Appellees shall jointly and severally pay to the Appellant Company10,560,000
yen and an amount accrued thereon at 5% per annum for the period from August 28,
2018 until the completion of the payment.
2. Appellant X(1) The judgment in prior instance shall be rescinded.
(2) A. The Appellees shall not reproduce and distribute the documents indicated in 1
through 8 of Attachment 1 "List of the Defendant's Resumes" of the judgment in pr ior
instance that contain the statements that are indicated in the "Defendant's Statement
Part" column of Attachment 2 "Resume Comparison Table" of the judgment in priorinstance.
B. The Appellees shall destroy the documents indicated in 1 through 8 of Attachment 1"List of the Defendant's Resumes" of the judgment in prior instance that contain thestatements that are indicated in the "Defendant's Statement Part" column of Attachment
2 "Resume Comparison Table" of the judgment in prior instance.
C. The Appellees shall jointly and severally pay to Appellant X 660,000 yen and an
amount accrued thereon at 5% per annum for the period from August 28, 2018 until thecompletion of the payment.
No. 2 Outline of the case (Unless particularly noted, the same abbreviations used in the
judgment in prior instance shall be used herein.)
1. Summary of the caseIn this case, (1) the Appellant Company [i] alleged that the act of the Appellees to2

provide workshops and consultations on meetings called "Samurai Meetings"(hereinafter referred to as "Samurai Meetings") using the documents indicated in 1
through 8 of Attachment 1 "List of Defendant's Resumes" of the judgment in priorinstance (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Defendant's Resumes") falls underinfringement of the copyright (right of reproduction and adaptation right) of a work
related to a workbook titled "2011 Nendo Sugoi Keikaku Sakusei Kit Peach Party
Matador Version (FY2011 Super Plan Creation Kit Peach Party Matador Version)" heldby the Appellant Company (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff's Workbook") anddemanded an injunction against the Appellees based on Article 112, paragraph (1) andparagraph (2) of the Copyright Act against the reproduction and distribution of the
Defendant's Resumes that contain the statements indicated in the "Defendant Statement
Part" column of Attachment 2 "Resume Comparison Table" of the judgment in priorinstance (hereinafter the statements corresponding to the numbers stated in the"Number" column in the Comparison Table are referred to as "Defendant Statement Part
1," etc.) and for destruction of the Defendant's Resumes; [ii] alleged that the act ofAppellee Vanguard and Appellee Samurai Vision (hereinafter collectively referred to as"Appellee Companies" in some cases) to have created a video stated in 1 of Attachment
4 "List of Posted Videos" of the judgment in prior instance (hereinafter referred to as"Posted Video 1") in which a copy of "When meetings change, the company changes
without fail!" (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant's Copy") is displayed falls
under infringement of the copyright (adaptation right) of a work related to a copy of"Meetings change. Company changes." that is held by the Appellant Company(hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff's Copy") and based on paragraph (1) of said
Article, demanded injunction against the Appellee Companies against the use of the
Defendant's Copy; [iii] alleged that the act of the Appellees to provide consultation
services by using information related to the know-hows stated in the "Know-Hows"
column of Attachment 3 "Comparison Table of Know-Hows" of the judgment in priorinstance as stated in the Plaintiff's Workbook (hereinafter the know-hows corresponding
to the numbers in the "Number" column in the Comparison Table are referred to as"Know-How 1," etc. and Know-How 1 through Know-How 24 are collectively referred
to as "Know-Hows"), the act of Appellee Vanguard to post on the website Posted Video
1 that was created by using Know-How 3 and the video indicated in 2 of Attachment 4"List of Posted Videos" of the judgment in prior instance (hereinafter referred to as"Posted Video 2" and it is collectively referred along with Posted Video 1 as the "Posted
Videos"), and the act of Appellee Samurai Vision to post Posted Video 1 on the website
fall under acts of unfair competition, such as unauthorized use and improper disclosure3

of Know-Hows that are trade secrets of the Appellant Company (Article 2, paragraph(1), item (vii) and item (viii) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act) and demanded
injunction against the Appellees based on Article 3, paragraph (1) of the same Act
against the use of Know-Hows and against the Appellee Companies based on paragraph(2) of said Article for the deletion of the Posted Videos; [iv] demanded that theAppellees jointly and severally pay 11,000 yen as compensation for damages due to thejoint tort of copyright infringement and an amount accrued thereon at 5% per annum as
specified by the Civil Code before amendment by Act No. 44 of 2017 (hereinafterreferred to as "specified by the Civil Code before the amendment") for the period from
August 28, 2018 (after the tort) until the completion of the payment as delay damages;
and [v] demanded that the Appellees jointly and severally pay 10,560,000 yen ascompensation for damages based on Article 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act
and the amount accrued thereon at 5% per annum as specified by the Civil Code before
the amendment for the period from said date (after the tort) until the completion of thepayment as delay damages; and (2) Appellant X alleged that the act of the Appellees to
use the Defendant's Resumes by modifying them for each customer without displaying
the name of Appellant X falls under an infringement of the moral rights of the author(right of attribution and right to integrity) of the work related to the Plaintiff's Workbook
held by Appellant X and demanded injunction against the Appellees based on Article
112, paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the Copyright Act against the reproduction anddistribution of the Defendant's Resumes that contain the statements of DefendantStatement Parts 1 through 24 and for destruction of the Defendant's Resumes, andAppellant X demanded that the Appellees jointly and severally pay 660,000 yen ofsolatium, etc. as compensation for damages due to the joint tort of the infringement of
the moral rights of the author and the amount accrued thereon at 5% per annum as
specified by the Civil Code before the amendment for the period from said date (after
the tort) until the completion of the payment as delay damages.
With regard to the claims of the Appellant Company, the court of prior instancedetermined that the Defendant's Resumes are not found to be a reproduction or
adaptation of the Plaintiff's Workbook, the Plaintiff's Copy does not fall under the
category of a work, and the Know-Hows do not fall under trade secrets, and dismissed
all of the claims because they are groundless, without examining the remaining matters.
With regard to the claims of Appellant X, the court of prior instance also determinedthat the Defendant's Resumes are not found to be a reproduction or adaptation of thePlaintiff's Workbook, and therefore that infringement of the moral rights of the author
cannot be found, and dismissed all of the claims because they are groundless, without
4

examining the remaining matters.
The Appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment in prior instance and filed theseappeals.
2. Basic facts
Corrections are made as indicated below and the rest are as indicated in No. 2, 2. inthe "Facts and reasons" section of the judgment in prior instance and therefore they arecited.
(1) The phrase "(hereinafter referred to as "Samurai Meetings")" on page 6, line 23 in
the judgment in prior instance is amended to "(Samurai Meetings)."(2) The term "upgrade" on page 8, line 20 in the judgment in prior instance is amended
to "upgrade February 2006."
3. Issues
Corrections are made as indicated below and the rest are as indicated in No. 2, 3. inthe "Facts and reasons" section of the judgment in prior instance and therefore they arecited.
(1) Each term for "existence" on page 12, line 4 and line 9 in the judgment in priorinstance is amended to "establishment."(2) The expression "copyright infringement" on page 12, line 6 in the judgment in priorinstance is amended to "infringement of the copyright (right of reproduction andadaptation right)" and the expression "author's moral right infringement" in line 7 ofsaid page is amended to "infringement of the moral rights of the author (right of
attribution and right to integrity)."(omitted)
No. 3 Judgment of this Court
1. Issue 1 (Establishment of the infringement of the copyright and the moral rights of
the author related to the Plaintiff's Workbook)(1) Issue 1-1 (Establishment of the infringement of the copyright (right of reproduction
and adaptation right) related to the Plaintiff's Workbook)
A. The Copyright Act has the definitions that a work means a creatively produced
expression of thoughts or sentiments that falls within a literary, academic, artistic, ormusical domain (Article 2, paragraph (1), item (i) of the Copyright Act) and that
reproduction means the physical replication of a work through printing, photography,
or copying, through the recording of sound or visuals, or in any other way (item (xv) of
said paragraph). Therefore, reproduction of a work (Article 21 of the same Act) is
5

construed to mean an act of physical replication of the creatively produced expression
depending on the work.
In addition, adaptation of a work (Article 27 of the same Act) is construed to be an
act depending on an existing work with the following aims: to maintain the identity ofa creatively produced expression that is an essential feature of the expression, to add
corrections, increases and decreases, changes, etc. to a specific expression, and to
express new thoughts or sentiments creatively, and thereby to create another work sothat a person who comes into contact with it can directly feel the creatively produced
expression of an existing work.
According to the above understanding, in order to say that the Defendant's Resumes
fall under a reproduction or adaptation of a work related to the Plaintiff's Workbook, it
is reasonable to construe that there are common expressions between the Plaintiff's
Workbook and the Defendant's Resumes and the expressions are creatively produced
expressions, in other words, there must be common creative expressions. At the sametime, in cases where only ideas or other parts that are not expressions are common to
the Plaintiff's Workbook and the Defendant's Resumes and where the common
expressions are ordinary expressions, it is construed that the Defendant's Resumes do
not fall under a reproduction or adaptation of the Plaintiff's Workbook.
B. The Appellant Company alleged that the Plaintiff's Workbook and the Defendant's
Resumes substantially share the same overall structure and, as stated in the "Plaintiffs'
allegation" column in Attachment 2 "Resume Comparison Table" of the judgment inprior instance and in Attachment 5 "Comparison Table of Allegations Concerning thePlaintiff's Workbook" of the judgment in prior instance, the Appellant Company also
alleged that the expressions that are identical in specific statement parts are creatively
produced expressions and therefore the Defendant's Resumes fall under a reproduction
or adaptation of the Plaintiff's Workbook. Therefore, the court makes a determination
as follows.
(A) Reproduction or adaptation related to Plaintiff's Statement Parts 1 through 24 andDefendant's Statement Parts 1 through 24
a. Plaintiff's Statement Parts 1 through 5 and Defendant's Statement Parts 1 through 5(a) As stated in Numbers 1 through 5 of Attachment 2 "Resume Comparison Table" ofthe judgment in prior instance, the part of the Plaintiff's Workbook in question and thepart of the Defendant's Resumes in question share the statements with the following
meanings, as rules in meetings: "try to do" as it is stated in the procedures (No. 1); turnoff your "cellphone" (No. 2); if you find a "problem," do not "point out the problem,"but "present a solution" (No. 3); do not reply "I don't know" (No. 4); and mak e your6

"statement" using "short," "simple," and "straightforward" expressions (No. 5).
However, Plaintiff's Statement Part 1 states "Try to do as stated in the proceduresin this book first."; however, Defendant's Statement Part 1 states "Leave everythi ng tothis book and try to do as it says." Plaintiff's Statement Part 3 states "If you find aproblem, do not point it out, but present a solution to a person who can resolve it (theperson may be you)."; however, Defendant's Statement Part 3 states "If yo u find aproblem, present a solution. Don't just point out the problem." Plaintiff's Statement Part
4 states "Don't reply 'I don't know' to questions asked by this workbook."; however,Defendant's Statement Part 4 states "Try not to reply 'I don't know' or 'Nothing' duringa Samurai Meeting." Plaintiff's Statement Part 5 states "Make statements by following
the 3S rules (3S: Short, Simple, and Straightforward expressions)."; however,Defendant's Statement Part 5 states "Make a statement using short, simple, andstraightforward expressions." Expressions in specific statements are different and nocommonality is found.
Then, Defendant's Statement Parts 1 through 5 and Plaintiff's Statement Parts 1
through 5 share the point that they are statements explaining rules in meetings; however,the commonality lies in ideas about how to determine rules in meetings, not in
expressions themselves.
(b) Concerning Plaintiff's Statement Parts 1 through 5 and Defendant's Statement Parts
1 through 5, the Appellant Company alleged that [i] they share commonality regarding
the point that they adopt, from among several options for expressing rules in meetings,
the form of describing even what seems to be quite ordinary in a precautious manner,
but these common parts are creative expressions; and [ii] there are many rules inmeetings and there is a wide variety of options for selecting, combining, and expressing
rules; therefore, it does not fall under a case where there is only one way to express anidea or where the ways of expression are limited to a considerable extent, if not limited
to only one; accordingly, the common parts between Plaintiff's Statement Parts 1
through 5 and Defendant's Statement Parts 1 through 5 do not represent ideas.
However, determining rules at the beginning of meetings and purposefully
describing ordinary matters in a workbook or resume is just an idea. Therefore, even if
individuality is found to be expressed in such an idea, it cannot immediately be said
that the creative expression parts are common based only on this fact. In addition,
whether it falls under a case where there is only one way to express an idea or where
the ways of expression are limited to a considerable extent, if not limited to only one,may be an element to be taken into account when considering whether a certain
expression is creative or not based on its specific expression; however, it does not have7

an impact on determining whether the common parts between Plaintiff's Statement Parts
1 through 5 and Defendant's Statement Parts 1 through 5 that were found in (a) above
fall under expressions or ideas.
Consequently, the aforementioned allegation of the Appellant Company cannot be
adopted.
(c) In addition, the Appellant Company alleged that [i] five rules in Plaintiff's Statem ent
Parts 1 through 5 and Defendant's Statement Parts 1 through 5 are identical; each rule
is stated in a short sentence, but since rules make a sense as a whole, Plaintiff's
Statement Parts 1 through 5 and Defendant's Statement Parts 1 through 5 both constitutea text of a considerable length if seen as a unit and they are not short expressions; and[ii] there are no other books and websites that indicate all of these five rules; theoriginality and ingenuity of a creator are expressed in the layout and character string ofthese five rules, such as is observed in the selection of the expression of "Try to do" asstated in the procedures for the first rule, etc., and they cannot be said to becommonplace expressions, and therefore Plaintiff's Statement Parts 1 through 5 andDefendant's Statement Parts 1 through 5 share those creative expressions.
However, as found in (a) above, commonality in the expressions of the specificstatements cannot be found in Plaintiff's Statement Parts 1 through 5 and Defendant 's
Statement Parts 1 through 5.
In addition, concerning the expression "Try to do as stated ... first" in Plaintiff's
Statement Part 1, there are the expression "do obediently as stated" on the website(Exhibit Otsu 16) and the expressions "rules" and "Try to do ... first" in the book
(Exhibit Otsu 20) respectively; and concerning the expression "Make statements byfollowing the 3S rules (3S: Short, Simple, and Straightforward expressions)" as related
to "statements" during a meeting, there is the statement "Let's make statements inmeetings by following the "3S" rules (Short, Simple, and Straightforward)" on thewebsite (Exhibit Otsu 15). In light of these, they are ordinary expressions and it cannot
be said that they are creative.
Consequently, the aforementioned allegation of the Appellant cannot be adopted.
(d) Based on the above, the common parts of Defendant's Statement Parts 1 through 5
and Plaintiff's Statement Parts 1 through 5 are not considered as expressions. Therefore,
it cannot be found that Defendant's Statement Parts 1 through 5 fall under a reproduction
or adaptation of Plaintiff's Statement Parts 1 through 5.
b. Plaintiff's Statement Part 6 and Defendant's Statement Part 6(a) As stated in Number 6 of Attachment 2 "Resume Comparison Table" of the judgmentin prior instance, the part of the Plaintiff's Workbook in question and the part of the8Defendant's Resumes in question share the point that they are statements describing thatthe participants in a meeting "share problems" "as a team," create "roles," and acquire"a plan" and have the "passion" "to satisfy" the participants.
However, the aforementioned common parts are the results to be acquired as a goal
to be achieved through the meeting and absolutely represent ideas related to th e meansof acquiring the results, as a whole, but are not expressions by themselves.
In addition, Plaintiff's Statement Part 6 states in the first sentence that "thesemembers will share problems, establish a common goal, and share roles and create
commitments as a high-performance management team" as a means of acquiring theresults, and then it states in the second sentence that "thereby, achieve the goal, andacquire a plan and passion to satisfy stakeholders and these members" as the results tobe acquired. It is only a combination of plain terms that can recognize relationship, suchas "as a team," "share problems," "common," "roles," "to satisfy," "passion," etc. ingeneral order and they are commonplace (for example, in the case of the book (Exhibi t
Otsu 22), as procedures for making a decision by "a team," there is the statement: to"share" an issue, to establish a synthesizing "goal," and to adopt a proposal with amaximum degree of "satisfaction," etc., and combinations of the aforementioned term s
are commonplace). The structures of the first and second sentences are normally usedand commonplace, such as connecting means to the results, etc., and it cannot be said
that they are creative. Then, concerning the expression parts in Plaintiff's Statem ent
Part 6, "share problems, establish a common goal, and share roles and create
commitments," and " achieve the goal, and acquire a plan and passion to satisfy," andthe expression parts in Defendant's Statement Part 6, "share a problem, create a common
will, and create a role, assignment, and action plan to achieve the will," "to acquire a
structure and plan to continue growing and to generate a union and passion in order tosatisfy," it cannot be said that they share creative expressions.
(b) The Appellant Company alleged that [i] Plaintiff's Statement Part 6 and Defendant's
Statement Part 6 share the point that they are expressions compiling thoughts and ideas
in a simple form concerning what to do and what to acquire in meetings, andindividuality is displayed and creativity is found in that point; and [ii] even if the terms
used in the identical parts are simple terms where the relationship can be easily found,
there are no other books and websites that use the structures of the first sentence andthe second sentence by combining terms similar to Plaintiff's Statement Part 6 andDefendant's Statement Part 6; easy-to-understand and unique expressions are used as away of expressing meeting objectives and creativity is found; and therefore, Plaintiff's
Statement Part 6 and Defendant's Statement Part 6 share creative expressions.
9However, even if the aforementioned parts are statements created by compilingthoughts and ideas related to meetings in a simple form, the way of compiling itself
merely remains an idea. Even if said statements are found to be expressions, theirstructure is commonplace as a way to compile objectives and a means of achieving themin meetings, and there are no features, as examined in (a) above, and they remain within
the realm of commonplace expressions.
Consequently, the aforementioned allegation of the Appellant Company cannot be
adopted.
(c) Based on the above, the common parts of Defendant's Statement Part 6 and Plaintiff's
Statement Part 6 cannot be said to be expressions or creatively produced expressions.
Therefore, it cannot be found that Defendant's Statement Part 6 falls under areproduction or adaptation of Plaintiff's Statement Part 6.
c. Plaintiff's Statement Parts 7 and 23 and Defendant's Statement Parts 7 and 23(a) As stated in Numbers 7 and 23 of Attachment 2 "Resume Comparison Table" of thejudgment in prior instance, the part of the Plaintiff's Workbook in question and the partof the Defendant's Resumes in question share the point that they are statements with thedetails of asking at the beginning of a meeting from the perspective of the end of themeeting "what results" are "most valuable" "to you" when they are acquired in themeeting.
However, the aforementioned common parts are explanations of what question
should be given to participants by a person who leads a meeting and what awarenessthat person should have participants possess in the meeting, as one of the methods oforganizing a meeting and they absolutely represent ideas.
Next, the expression "What results are the most valuable to you when they are
shown?" in Plaintiff's Statement Part 7 ("What results are most valuable to you when
they are shown at the end of today's meeting?") and the expression "What results are
the most valuable to you when they are acquired?" in Defendant's Statement Part 7 ("Ifyou spend the same amount of time, what results are most valuable to you when they
are acquired during the Samurai Meeting?") have a great deal in common.
In addition, the expression "What results are most valuable to you from among theresults you acquired?" in Plaintiff's Statement Part 23 ("What results are most valuable
to you from among the results you acquired when today's session is over?) and theexpression "What results are most valuable to you from among the results you
acquired?" in Defendant's Statement Part 23 ("What results are most valuable to you
from among the results you acquired during today's Samurai Meeting?) have a great
deal in common.
10However, it can be said that Plaintiff's Statement Parts 7 and 23 are short
expressions consisting of one sentence. The expressions "What results are mostvaluable to you when they are shown?" or "What results are most valuable to you fromamong the results you acquired?" in the aforementioned statements are commonplace
expressions that are usually used when asking about the most helpful results acquired
from a meeting. Therefore, it cannot be said that these common expressions are creative.
(b) The Appellant Company alleged, based on the assumption that Plaintiff's Statement
Parts 7 and 23 and Defendant's Statement Parts 7 and 23 are identical in theirexpressions, that the identical parts leave room for the selection of expressions when
expressing know-hows and that as there are no other materials, etc. using similar
expressions, they cannot be said to be commonplace expressions and therefore they are
creative.
However, as mentioned in (a) above, the common parts of Defendant's Statement
Parts 7 and 23 and Plaintiff's Statement Parts 7 and 23 cannot be said to be expressions
or creatively produced expressions. Therefore, the aforementioned allegation of theAppellant Company cannot be adopted.
(c) Based on the above, it cannot be found that Defendant's Statement Parts 7 and 23
fall under a reproduction or adaptation of Plaintiff's Statement Parts 7 and 23.
d. Plaintiff's Statement Parts 8 through 13 and Defendant's Statement Parts 8 through
13(a) As stated in Numbers 8 through 13 of Attachment 2 "Resume Comparison Table" ofthe judgment in prior instance, the part of the Plaintiff's Workbook in question and thepart of the Defendant's Resumes in question share the point that they are statementswith the following details: to "write" "in your opinion," "three" answers regarding "whathas been achieved" (on a level of "overall company," "group," or "individual" etc.)(Number 8); to "write" approximately "two matters that are considered to be the mostimportant" regarding "what problem," etc. "exists" "concerning" matters "that you face"in terms of "management," etc. (Number 9); to "write" "one matter that became aproblem due to" "another" "department" or "vendor" (in the form of stating the specificperson who caused the problem) regarding "what problem," etc. "exists" "concerning"the matters "you face" in terms of "management," etc. (Number 10); to "write" "one""problem, etc. that you cannot talk about" regarding "what problem," etc. "exists""concerning" the matters "that you face" in terms of "management" (Number 11); to"write one reply to" "what problem," etc. "exists" "concerning" the matters "that you
face" in terms of "management" and "what is a terrible truth" in your company ("overall
company," "department," etc.) (Number 12); and to write "what problem," etc. exists
11

"concerning" the matters "that you face" in terms of "management" and "what is aterrible truth about yourself" (Number 13).
However, the aforementioned common parts are explanations of methods oforganizing a meeting in the form where a person who leads a meeting asks questions
and has participants answer them, thereby having participants check what matters havealready been achieved before the meeting, examine organizational management
problems, etc., recognize who causes those problems, etc., identify what they cannot
talk about from among the problems, etc. and serious deficiencies that the organizationor the participants themselves have. Based on the above, all the aforementioned
common parts represent ideas, but are not found to be expressions.
Next, comparing Plaintiff's Statement Part 8 ("In your opinion, what has beenachieved by today (on a level of the overall company / group / team or individual)?
Write three or more answers.") with Defendant's Statement Part 8 ("In your opinion,
what was achieved by today in your life (on a level of the overall company, group,
individual, or on any level)? Write three or more answers"), the expressions sharecommonality concerning the point that the term "in your opinion" is placed at the
beginning of the sentence and the terms "overall company," "group," "individual,""level," and "what has been (was) achieved," "three," and "write" are used. It is possible
to say that the impressions received from the overall Plaintiff's Statement Part 8 andoverall Defendant's Statement Part 8 also share commonality.
However, on the other hand, the aforementioned expressions are a combination of
simple and often-used terms and defining details of questions as well as a way to give
answers. The term "In your opinion" is a short expression and the term "In my opinion"
is introduced as a helpful term to indicate your opinion on a website (Exhibit Otsu 47).
In light of the above, it cannot be said that the expression "In your opinion," in which"my" is replaced with "your," is a unique expression. Therefore, the aforementioned
expressions are commonplace and they cannot be said to be creative.
In addition, the following expression parts share commonality, respectively: theexpression "write two or three issues that you consider to be the most important" in
Plaintiff's Statement Part 9 and the expression "write two issues that you consider to be
the most important"; the expression "write one problem that you cannot talk about andone problem that you should not talk about" in Plaintiff's Statement Part 11 and theexpression "write one problem that you want to talk about, but you cannot" in
Defendant's Statement Part 11; the expression "What is a terrible truth in yourcompany? (...) Write one of them." in Plaintiff's Statement Part 12 and the expression"What is a terrible truth in this organization? (...) Write one of them." in Defendant's
12Statement Part 12; and the expression "What is a terrible truth about yourself?" inPlaintiff's Statement Part 13 and the expression "What is a terrible truth about
yourself?" in Defendant's Statement Part 13.
However, the terms "problem that you cannot talk about" and "terrible truth" areonly a combination of simple modifiers and a noun and it cannot be said that the
combination is especially unique. In light of the above, it cannot be said that creatively
produced expressions are shared even if the aforementioned common expressions
contain the aforementioned terms.
(b) The Appellant Company alleged as follows: [i] the identical parts in Plaintiff's
Statement Part 8 and Defendant's Statement Part 8 include a unique expression that is
not usually used in meetings, namely "In your opinion," and there are no materials anddocuments in which the same expression is used and therefore expressive creativity isfound in these identical parts; and [ii] the term "problem that you cannot talk about"that is included in the identical part between Plaintiff's Statement Part 11 andDefendant's Statement Part 11 and the term "terrible truth" that is included in Plaintiff's
Statement Parts 12 and 13 and Defendant's Statement Parts 12 and 13 are distinguishingand these parts have expressive creativity.
However, as mentioned in (a) above, even if the terms "In your opinion," "problem
that you cannot talk about," and "terrible truth" are included, it cannot be said that theexpression parts common to Plaintiff's Statement Parts 8, 11 through 13 and Defendant's
Statement Parts 8, 11 through 13 have creativity. Therefore, the aforementioned
allegation of the Appellant Company cannot be adopted.
(c) Based on the above, the common parts of Defendant's Statement Parts 8 through 13
and Plaintiff's Statement Parts 8 through 13 cannot be said to be expressions orcreatively produced expressions. Therefore, it cannot be found that Defendant's
Statement Parts 8 through 13 fall under a reproduction or adaptation of Plaintiff's
Statement Part 8 through 13.
e. Plaintiff's Statement Parts 14 and 17 and Defendant's Statement Parts 14 and 17(a) As stated in Number 14 of Attachment 2 "Resume Comparison Table" of thejudgment in prior instance, the part in the Plaintiff's Workbook in question and the partof the Defendant's Resumes in question share the point that there is a form to fill out
underlined blank fields with figures and terms, such as a deadline "by ____ (year) /_____ (month) / ____ (day)," indexes to be achieved, and final goals in three lines(however, the orders of the three lines are different).
However, having respondents answer questions in a form by filling out blanks wit hfigures and terms or by indicating an answer for each item for each line is an ordinary
13

way used as an expression for questions and answers. Therefore, the aforementioned
common parts are commonplace and cannot be said to be creatively produced
expressions.
Next, as stated in Number 17 of Attachment 2 "Resume Comparison Table" of thejudgment in prior instance, the part of the Plaintiff's Workbook in question and the partof the Defendant's Resumes in question share the point that there are multiple bo xes toenter texts and a figure wherein those multiple boxes are indicated in a manner tosurround a center box.
However, having meeting participants enter their opinions, etc. in boxes whose
positions are set in advance can be said to be commonplace as an expression method oforganizing opinions, etc. of meeting participants (for example, there are statements inthe book (Exhibit Otsu 21) and website (Exhibits Otsu 40 and 42) to enter terms in one
box and multiple boxes that are indicated in a manner to surround the relevant one box).
Then, the aforementioned common parts cannot be said to be creatively produced
expressions.
(b) The Appellant Company alleged, concerning Plaintiff's Statement Part 14 andDefendant's Statement Part 14, based on the assumption that the parts that are found tobe identical are expressions, that these parts adopt the three-line fill-in-the-blankmethod from diversified expression options, and as there are no other examples withsimilar format, the aforementioned parts are creatively produced expressions.
However, as mentioned in (a) above, the common parts of Defendant's Statement
Part 14 and Plaintiff's Statement Part 14 cannot be said to be creatively produced
expressions. Therefore, the aforementioned allegation of the Appellant Company
cannot be adopted.
(c) Based on the above, it cannot be found that Defendant's Statement Parts 14 and 17
fall under a reproduction or adaptation of Plaintiff's Statement Parts 14 and 17.
f. Plaintiff's Statement Parts 15, 16, and 21 and Defendant's Statement Parts 15, 16, and
21(a) As stated in Numbers 15, 16, and 21 of Attachment 2" Resume Comparison Table"of the judgment in prior instance, the part of the Plaintiff's Workbook in question andthe part of the Defendant's Resumes in question share the point that they are statementswith the details of naming the goal that is determined in a meeting (No. 15), making acommitment concerning the goal determined in the meeting (No. 16), and writing"actions," "due date," and "results" (No. 21).
However, the aforementioned common parts are ideas related to how to proceedwith meetings, such as naming a goal that is determined in a meeting, making a
14

commitment to the goal, and stating "actions," "due date," and "results," etc.
Then, it should be said that commonality between Plaintiff's Statement Parts 15, 16,
and 21 and Defendant's Statement Parts 15, 16, and 21 is found only with the parts thatare not expressions by themselves.
(b) The Appellant Company alleged that an expression based on an idea is a specificexpression if there is only one way to express an idea or if the ways of expression arelimited to a considerable extent, if not limited to only one, and then alleged, based on
the assumption that Plaintiff's Statement Parts 15, 16, and 21 and Defendant's Statement
Parts 15, 16, and 21 are identical in their expressions, that as there are no other examples
using these phrases, they are creatively produced expressions.
However, as mentioned in (a) above, the common parts of Defendant's Statement
Parts 15, 16, and 21 and Plaintiff's Statement Parts 15, 16, and 21 represent ideas, but
are not found to be expressions. Therefore, the aforementioned allegation of theAppellant Company cannot be adopted due to an error in its assumption.
(c) Based on the above, it cannot be found that the Defendant's Statement Parts 15, 16,
and 21 fall under a reproduction or adaptation of the Plaintiff's Statement Parts 15, 16,
and 21.
g. Plaintiff's Statement Parts 18 through 20 and Defendant's Statement Parts 18 through20(a) As stated in Numbers 18 through 20 of Attachment 2 "Resume Comparison Table"of the judgment in prior instance, the part of the Plaintiff's Workbook in question andthe part of the Defendant's Resumes in question share the point that they are statementswith details such as grouping issues that are presented in a meeting by category (No.
18), having "a person who makes decisions" determine "a person in charge" (No. 19),and having "the person in charge" establish "milestones" (No. 20).
However, all of the aforementioned common parts are explanations of defining rolesof each participant towards achieving a goal in a meeting and are ideas related tomethods of organizing a meeting. Therefore, it should be said that they are notexpressions by themselves.
(b) The Appellant Company alleged that there are many ways to define roles of eachparticipant towards achieving a goal in a meeting and since it does not fall under a casewhere there is only one way to express an idea or where the ways of expression arelimited to a considerable extent, if not limited to only one, the identical parts in
Plaintiff's Statement Parts 18 through 20 and Defendant's Statement Parts 18 through20 do not represent ideas but are specific expressions.
However, whether this is a case where there is only one way to express an idea or a15

case where the ways of expression are limited to a considerable extent, if not limited toonly one, may be an element to be taken into account when considering whether acertain expression is creative or not based on its specific expression; however, it does
not have an impact on determining whether the common parts between Plaintiff's
Statement Parts 18 through 20 and Defendant's Statement Parts 18 through 20 that were
found in (a) above fall under expressions or ideas.
Consequently, the aforementioned allegation of the Appellant Company cannot be
adopted.
(c) Based on the above, it cannot be found that Defendant's Statement Parts 18 through20 fall under a reproduction or adaptation of Plaintiff's Statement Parts 18 through 20.
h. Plaintiff's Statement Parts 22 and 24 and Defendant's Statement Parts 22 and 24(a) The expression in Plaintiff's Statement Part 22 ("What did you acquire") and theexpression in Defendant's Statement Part 22 ("What did you acquire from thismeeting?") as stated in Number 22 of Attachment 2 "Resume Comparison Table" of thejudgment in prior instance share commonality; however, Plaintiff's Statement Part 22
consists of only one sentence and is an extremely short statement and it is general andcommonplace as an expression to ask what participants "acquired" in a meeting.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the aforementioned common expressions havecreativity.
In addition, the expression in Plaintiff's Statement Part 24 ("What has been goingwell") and the expression in Defendant's Statement Part 24 ("What has been goingwell?") share commonality; however, the Plaintiff's Statement Part 24 consists of only
one sentence and is an extremely short statement and it is general and commonplace as
an expression to ask what is "going well." Therefore, it cannot be said that the
aforementioned common expressions have creativity.
(b) Concerning questions to participants at the close of a meeting and questions toparticipants to check progress in a meeting, based on the facts that there may be avariety of expressions and there is a wide range of options, the Appellant Company
alleged that since it does not fall under a case where there is only one way to express
an idea or where the ways of expression are limited to a considerable extent, if notlimited to only one, Plaintiff's Statement Parts 22 and 24 and Defendant's Statement
Parts 22 and 24 do not represent ideas but are parts sharing creatively produced
expressions.
However, as found in (a) above, it cannot be said that Plaintiff's Statement Parts 22
and 24 and Defendant's Statement Parts 22 and 24 share creatively produced
expressions. Additionally, it cannot be said that an expression is always found to b e
16creatively produced only based on the fact that it does not fall under a case where there
is only one way to express an idea or where the ways of expression are limited to aconsiderable extent, if not limited to only one. Therefore, the aforementioned allegationof the Appellant Company cannot be adopted.
(c) Based on the above, it cannot be found that Defendant's Statement Parts 22 and 24
fall under a reproduction or adaptation of Plaintiff's Statement Parts 22 and 24.
(B) Structure of the Plaintiff's Workbook as a whole and structure of the Defendant's
Resumes as a wholea. As shown in Attachment 2 "Resume Comparison Table" of the judgment in priorinstance, the structure of the Plaintiff's Workbook as a whole and the structure of the
Defendant's Resumes as a whole share the point that the following items, [i]confirmation of meeting rules and objectives (No. 1 through No. 6); [ii] confirmationof the results to be acquired (No. 7); [iii] confirmation of what has been achieved bytoday (No. 8); [iv] identification of problems and concerns (No. 9 through No. 13); [v]creation of strategic focuses (establishment of goals) (No. 14 through No. 16); [vi]clarification of roles (ways to achieve the goals, clarification of persons in charge andresponsibilities) (No. 17 through No. 19); [vii] establishment of an action plan(commitment) (No. 20 through No. 22); and [viii] problem resolution (No. 23 and No.
24), are selected and are arranged almost in the same order.
However, it should be said that the aforementioned common parts absolutely
represent ideas about the items and order of implementation in a meeting, but are notfound to be expressions.
b. The Appellant Company alleged as follows: [i] based on the assumption that the partsof the structure of the Plaintiff's Workbook as a whole and the structure of the
Defendant's Resumes as a whole where commonality is found are expressions, much of
the originality and ingenuity in terms of expressions are exercised for the parts inquestion, such as sorting out and aligning a variety of details under a uniform themeand selecting easy-to-understand expressions and impressive expressions, and abstract
know-hows are expressed with originality and ingenuity, while there are a variety ofoptions concerning expression methods, so that a person can serve as a leader of ameeting based on the Workbook or Resumes; accordingly, the parts in question haveoriginality and show individuality and therefore are creative; and [ii] the Plaintiff's
Workbook has an aspect as a functional work that presents know-hows on how toproceed with a meeting; however, since it is composed as a sort of a reading with a plotrather than as an explanatory manual listing key points and tricks for smoothly
proceeding with a meeting, it is not a work that will end up the same no matter who
17writes it and individuality is shown at a high level, in the same manner as in a novel;
therefore, it has expressive creativity and the Plaintiff's Workbook as a whole and the
Defendant's Resumes as a whole share creatively produced expressions.
However, as found in (a) above, the parts where identicalness is found in the
Plaintiff's Workbook as a whole and the Defendant's Resumes as a whole absolutely
represent ideas about the items and order of implementation in a meeting, but are notfound to be expressions.
In addition, as found in (A) above, the common parts of Plaintiff's Statement Parts
1 through 24 and Defendant's Statement Parts 1 through 24 are not expressions or areparts without expressive creativity and it cannot be found that the creatively produced
expressions are common even by comparing all the aforementioned statements.
Consequently, the aforementioned allegation of the Appellant Company cannot be
adopted.
c. Based on the above, it cannot be found that the structure of the Defendant's Resumes
as a whole falls under a reproduction or adaptation of the structure of the Plaintiff's
Workbook as a whole.
C. Based on the above, there are no grounds for the aforementioned allegation of theAppellant Company that the Defendant's Resumes fall under a reproduction or
adaptation of the structure of the Plaintiff's Workbook.
Therefore, without examining the remaining points, there are no grounds for theAppellant Company's claims for injunction and compensation for damages based on
infringement the patent (right of reproduction and adaptation right) related to thePlaintiff's Workbook.
(2) Issue 1-2 (Establishment of the infringement of the moral rights of the author (rightof attribution and right to integrity) related to the Plaintiff's Workbook)
Corrections are made as indicated below and the rest are as indicated in No. 3, 1 -2.
in the "Facts and reasons" section of the judgment in prior instance and therefore they
are cited.
A. The term "Defendant's Statement Part" on page 50, line 21 through line 22 in the
judgment in prior instance is amended to "Defendant's Statement Parts 1 through 24."
B. The following is added as a new line after the end of page 51, line 1 in the judgmentin prior instance.
"Even if the right of attribution or the right to integrity of the Plaintiff's Workbook
has been infringed, if the requirements set forth in Article 113, paragraph (1), item (ii)of the Copyright Act are not met, it is construed that am injunction against the
reproduction of the Defendant's Resumes cannot be implemented."18

2. Issue 2 (Establishment of the infringement of the copyright related to the Plaintiff's
Copy)
It is as indicated in No. 3, 2. in the "Facts and reasons" section of the judgment inprior instance and therefore they are cited.
3. Issue 3 (Establishment of unfair competition concerning Know-Hows)
It is as indicated in No. 3, 3. in the "Facts and reasons" section of the judgment inprior instance and therefore they are cited.
4. Conclusion
As mentioned above, there are no grounds for the claims of the Appellants against
the Appellees and therefore the judgment in prior instance that dismissed these claims
is appropriate.
Consequently, there are no grounds for the appeals and therefore they are dismissed,
and the judgment is rendered as indicated in the main text.
Intellectual Property High Court, First Division
Presiding judge: OTAKA Ichiro
Judge: KOBAYASHI YasuhikoJudge: OGAWA Takatoshi

19