Concerning the Patent System and the Operations
Thereof that Contribute to the Activation of theIntellectual Property Dispute Resolution System (*)
The necessity of examination toward optimizing collection of evidence and determination of damages used in relation
to intellectual property disputes in Japan was stated in the "Intellectual Property Strategic Program 2015," which wasapproved by the Intellectual Property Strategy Headquarters on June 19, 2015. This examination requires anunderstanding of the international trend as well as the status of use of the procedures for collection of evidence and thesystem for presumption of damages in Japan. To this end, it is necessary to conduct a survey on collection of evidence
and determination of damages in relation to intellectual property disputes in foreign countries as well as the status of use
and evaluation thereof. Moreover, it is also necessary to gain an understanding of the relevant systems used in relation to
intellectual property disputes in Japan that would not be clearly mentioned in the text of judgments, such as thecollection of evidence prior to filing an action, preservation of evidence, obligation to clarify the specific conditions ofinfringement, order to produce documents, protective order and the provision for presumption of damages as well as thestatus of use and evaluation thereof.
Therefore, the purpose of this research study is to carry out a survey on the national and international systems forcollection of evidence and determination of damages as well as the status of use thereof, thereby preparing basic
material which may be used in considering the activation of the intellectual property dispute resolution system.

I

Introduction

1

Background to This Research Study
A decade since the establishment of the Intellectual
Property High Court, which was one of the early
achievements of the Intellectual Property Strategic
Program, Japan’s intellectual property dispute resolution
system has received a certain amount of praise from theindustrial world and IP practitioners. Yet, many people
call for its improvement in usability and convenience1. In
Japan, prompt and accurate settlement of various kinds ofdispute concerning intellectual property is theinfrastructure for the creation of innovation using
intellectual property. In the whole intellectual propertysystem, the intellectual property dispute resolution system
is becoming increasingly important in light of intellectual
property strategies. Taking into full consideration thatJapan is exposed to international competition amongsystems, now is the time to consider how Japan’s
intellectual property dispute resolution system should be
developed.
In order to ensure appropriate trial in patent
infringement lawsuits, ample evidence must be submitted
by both plaintiffs and defendants. However, in many
patent infringement lawsuits, most of the evidence tends
to be found on the defendant’s side instead of theplaintiff's, which makes it hard for right holders to prove
infringement The following three conditions make it hard
to collect evidence: (i) proceedings to arrange issues,
carried out at the beginning of a lawsuit, are not fully

functioning; (ii) the order to submit a document, aneffective method to prove infringement by an alleged
infringer, is not fully functioning; and (iii) the protective
order system, a premise for collection of evidence for alawsuit, is not fully functioning2. Meanwhile, the systemfor collection of evidence has been improved by therevision of the Code of Civil Procedures and the Patent
Act, and thus some argue that it has become possible tocollect evidence in an appropriate manner based on thecontrol of court proceedings by the court.
Accordingly, it is necessary to examine theprocedures for collection of evidence by gaining asufficient understanding of the actual conditions of theprocedures for collection of evidence as well as theoperations thereof.
While some argue that damages determined by
Japanese courts have reached an appropriate level as aresult of the successive revisions of the Patent Act, manyothers say that they still remain lower than the actual
needs of businesses. Problems lie in that paragraph (1) of
Article 102 of the Patent Act (presumption of damages,etc.) which was included with the aim of facilitating theact of showing proof has been little utilized, and that theidea used in applying the concept of the "contribution
ratio," which is used to calculate and restrict damages aswell as the calculation method thereof, has not been madeclear. Moreover, with respect to the current concept ofcompensation based on the "actual damage" within theframework of the Civil Code, some point out that there isroom for review from the standpoint of providing relief(*) This is an English summary by the Institute of Intellectual Property based on the FY2015 JPO-commissioned research study report on theissues related to the industrial property rights system.
●

IIP Bulletin 2016 Vol.25

1 ●for damage caused by patent infringement by taking into
account the investment in research and development
required to materialize the patent3.
Accordingly, it is necessary to examine the systemfor damages in Japan by gaining an understanding of thesystem for damages in foreign countries as well as theactual conditions of businesses.
The necessity of examining the procedures forcollection of evidence and the system for damages usedin relation to intellectual property disputes in Japan wasstated in the "Intellectual Property Strategic Program
2015," which was approved by the Intellectual Property
Strategy Headquarters on June 19 of the previous year4.
This examination requires an understanding of theinternational trend as well as the status of use of theprocedures for collection of evidence and the system ofpresumption of damages in Japan. To this end, it isnecessary to conduct a survey on the systems forcollection of evidence and determination of damages inrelation to intellectual property disputes in foreigncountries as well as the status of use and evaluation
thereof. Moreover, it is also necessary to gain anunderstanding of the relevant systems used in relation to
intellectual property disputes in Japan that would not beclearly mentioned in the text of judgments such as thecollection of evidence prior to filing an action,
preservation of evidence, obligation to clarify the specificconditions of infringement, order to produce documents,
protective order and the provision for presumption ofdamages as well as the status of use and evaluation
thereof.
Therefore, the purpose of this research study is tocarry out a survey on the national and international
systems for collection of evidence and determination ofdamages as well as the status of use thereof, thereby
preparing basic material which may be used inconsidering the activation of the intellectual property
dispute resolution system.
2

Methods Used to Implement This ResearchStudy(1) Survey of Public Information (National andInternational Systems for the Procedures forCollection of Evidence and Determination of
Damages, as well as the Status of Use
Thereof)By using books, papers, judicial precedents, researchstudy reports, council reports, database information andInternet-based information, we surveyed, organized andanalyzed the materials, etc. (including materials, etc. of
foreign countries) related to the systems for collection ofevidence and determination of damages, as well as thestatus of use thereof, with respect to six countries, i.e.
Japan, the U.S., the U.K., Germany, France, China, andSouth Korea. In doing so, we focused on the items given●

below.
Moreover, in order to understand the position of thesystems for collection of evidence and determination ofdamages in the overall patent infringement lawsuits, thegeneral flow of patent infringement lawsuits was
surveyed and organized with respect to six countries, i.e.
Japan, the U.S., the U.K., Germany, France, China, andSouth Korea.
<Focused items>(i) System for Collection of Evidence* The discovery procedure of the U.S. and the state ofdiscussions on the improvement thereof* The disclosure procedure of the U.K. and the status
of use thereof* The inspection procedure of Germany and the status
of use thereof* The system for collection of evidence in France andthe status of use thereof* The systems for collection of evidence prior to filingan action, preservation of evidence, obligation toclarify the specific conditions of infringement, orderto produce documents and protective order in Japanand the status of use thereof(ii) Determination of Damages* Actual state of determination of damages in the U.S.
and the state of discussions on the improvement
thereof* Actual state of determination of damages in Europe(especially in the U.K., Germany and France)* Punitive damages systems in foreign countries andthe state of discussions on introducing such system* Actual state of determination of damages in Japan(status of use of the provisions of the Patent Act for
presumption of damages (Article 102, paragraphs (1)through (3) of the Patent Act))(2) Domestic Questionnaire Survey (Status ofUse, etc. of the Systems for Collection of
Evidence and Determination of Damages inJapan)
We conducted a questionnaire survey on thecollection of evidence and determination of damages
targeting 1,104 domestic companies as well as 52
attorneys and patent attorneys that have experience in
representing the parties in patent infringement lawsuit.
The targets and question items of the questionnaire
survey were examined from various standpoints and thefollowing points were taken into consideration.
* The questionnaire was devised to combine two kindsof questions, i.e. easy multiple-choice questions andopen answer questions.
* With respect to the contents of the questionnaire, thequestion items were decided and prepared for thedomestic companies, attorneys and patent attorneys,
respectively. Domestic companies were selected from2 ●IIP Bulletin 2016 Vol.25

among those that have considered filing a lawsuit, in
addition to those that have actually experienced
patent infringement lawsuits. With respect toattorneys and patent attorneys, their duty ofconfidentiality was taken into consideration.
* We added the purport and explanation of terms to thequestionnaire and also ensured that the method toanswer would be easy.
(3) Domestic Interview Survey (Status of Use,etc. of the Systems for Collection of
Evidence and Determination of Damages inJapan)
We implemented a domestic interview survey
targeting 21 persons from among those who werecovered in the questionnaire survey mentioned in (2)above.
The domestic interview survey was conducted withan aim to further explore the issue based on the results ofthe survey of public information and domestic
questionnaire survey. In addition, the selection of theinterview targets and the contents of the interview were
examined from various standpoints based on the resultsof the survey of public information, etc.
(4) Overseas Questionnaire Survey (Systems forCollection of Evidence and Determination of
Damages in Foreign Countries and the Status of
Use Thereof, etc.)
We sent a questionnaire to overseas companies thathave experience in patent infringement lawsuits in thefour countries, i.e. the U.S., the U.K., Germany andFrance (three companies for each country), as well as tothe persons of local law firms, etc. who have represented
many companies in patent infringement lawsuits in theabovementioned countries, etc. (three persons for eachcountry) to conduct a survey on the systems for collectionof evidence and determination of damages in eachcountry and the status of use thereof, as well as thecurrent situation of discussions on the systems of eachcountry. Based on this questionnaire, we surveyed theactual conditions confirmed by the practical experience inpatent infringement lawsuits.
The selection of the targets of the overseas
questionnaire and the question items were examinedbased on various standpoints, and multiple types ofquestionnaire were prepared according to the attributionof the target.
The following points were taken into considerationin conducting the questionnaire survey.
* Overseas questionnaire survey was conducted bytaking into consideration the same points which had
been taken into consideration in conducting thesurvey of public information and domestic
questionnaire survey.
●

IIP Bulletin 2016 Vol.25* With respect to the questionnaire, the question items
were decided and then prepared by translating themfor each country and region of the target.
(5) Overseas Interview Survey (Systems forCollection of Evidence and Determination of
Damages in Foreign Countries and the
Status of Use Thereof, etc.)
The overseas interview survey was conducted
targeting three persons from among the targets of theoverseas questionnaire survey mentioned in (4) above,
judges and former judges in the four countries, i.e. the
U.S., the U.K., Germany and France.
The overseas interview survey was conducted withan aim to further explore the issue based on the results ofthe survey of public information and overseas
questionnaire survey. In addition, the selection of theinterview targets and the contents of the interview were
examined from various standpoints based on the resultsof the survey of public information and overseas
questionnaire survey.
(6) Summary
The following finding was obtained from theanalysis based on the abovementioned survey.
The following understanding was obtained withrespect to the systems for collection of evidence anddetermination of damages in intellectual property disputes
in foreign countries and the status of use and evaluation
thereof, as well as the systems for collection of evidence
prior to filing an action, preservation of evidence,obligation to clarify the specific conditions ofinfringement, order to produce documents, protective
order and the provision of presumption of damages in
intellectual property disputes in Japan and the status of
use and evaluation thereof.

II Domestic Survey
1Collection of Evidence
The system to collect evidence prior to filing anaction (Article 132-2, Article 132-3 and Article 132-4 of
the Code of Civil Procedure) is hardly used. Many of the
respondents answered that this was because the system
requires prior notice but is not binding. At the same time,
there were a number of respondents who were unaware of
the system itself in the first place. In addition, there weremore demands for enhancement and improvement of thesystem to collect evidence after filing a lawsuit than thosefor improvement of the system to collect evidence prior
to filing a lawsuit.
The system for preservation of evidence (Article 234of the Code of Civil Procedure) has also hardly been used
for reasons such as the order being rarely issued by the
court based on lack of necessity despite a petition being
3 ●filed, or because of doubts about the effectiveness of theorder even if it were to be issued.
With respect to the obligation to clarify the specificconditions of infringement (Article 104-2 of the Patent
Act), there were relatively many opinions stating that thesystem is functioning.
With respect to the order to produce documents(Article 105, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Patent Act),
while in many cases the order was not issued by the court
despite a motion being filed, there were also a number ofcases where the document was voluntarily produced
through the control of court proceedings by the court.
Some respondents appreciated the operations wherein the
documents are produced voluntarily through the control
of court proceedings by the court retaining the order toproduce documents as the last resort while somesuggested that the court should issue such order and theprotective order in combination.
In-camera procedures (Article 105, paragraph (3) ofthe Patent Act) were hardly used: only 3 out of 27
attorneys with vast experience in intellectual property
lawsuits and only 1 out of 158 companies that haveexperienced lawsuits or have considered filing a lawsuit
had used this procedure.
The system for protective order (Article 105-4 of the
Patent Act) was also hardly used: only 5 out of 27
attorneys with vast experience in intellectual property
lawsuits and only 5 out of 158 companies that haveexperienced lawsuits or have considered filing a lawsuit
had used the system. Many respondents answered thatthey felt strong resistance as the disclosing party to the
obligation to include the relevant personnel of thecounterparty company in the scope of persons eligible forinspection of trade secrets. On the other hand, there weremany opinions stating that, as the party to inspect trade
secrets, there are cases where the representative is unable
to understand the contents, or, under a situation where athird party who has technical knowledge cannot inspect
the trade secrets, it is necessary to have the trade secrets
inspected by the person in charge in the company who ismost capable of understanding the contents.
2

Determination of Damages
With respect to the determination of damages, whilea relatively large number of patentees and attorneys
raised their dissatisfaction with the results, the opinions of
the alleged infringers were split into two: some weresatisfied with the results while some were not. The point
about which they felt greatest dissatisfaction was that thedetermination of the contribution ratio was either
insufficient or unclear. There were some opinions
wherein the respondent requested the court to stop using acontribution ratio determined based on unclear grounds,
while suggesting that the contribution ratio should be
used only in cases where a patent is granted for part of a●

product (parts) or the product contains multiple patents,
and that other elements should be clearly indicated as thegrounds for loss of presumption in the judgment.
With respect to the provision of Article 102,
paragraph (1) of the Patent Act, while many companies
admitted that its application makes it easier to have arelatively high amount of damages be determined, there
were also many companies that felt strong resistanceagainst the disclosure of their profit margin, thus
refraining from claiming damages pursuant to thatparagraph.
In relation to Article 102, paragraph (3) of the Patent
Act, at present, the royalty rate table published by theJapan Institute for Promoting Invention and Innovation isused as the basis. There were some opinions that since thedata show average values, more ranges should be
provided by narrowing down the scope of application.
Based on such opinion, the respondents were asked if a
database or guideline concerning the calculation of theroyalty rate would be convenient for them. In response tothis, many of the respondents answered that although theywould find it convenient, it would be impossible to makesuch database or guideline since it would be necessary to
subdivide the royalty rate for each industry and condition
but such information would be difficult to collect inrelation to the duty of confidentiality under a license
agreement. In addition, many respondents suggested that
half-hearted data or guidelines would rather have an
adverse effect.
The system of expert witness for calculation (Article105-2 of the Patent Act) had not experienced much use
due to reasons such as the high expense, i.e. 3,000,000 to
4,000,000 yen: 4 out of 27 attorneys with vast experience
in intellectual property lawsuits and 2 out of 158
companies that have experienced lawsuits or haveconsidered filing a lawsuit had used the system. However,3 out of 4 attorneys and 1 out of 2 companies that used
the system were satisfied with the expert opinion andsome of the respondents appreciated the system.

III Overseas Survey
1 The U.S.
(1) Collection of Evidence
The discovery procedure is a system for both parties
to disclose information relevant to the lawsuit during theperiod from the filing of an action until thecommencement of the trial.
Generally, the discovery procedure requires a cost of
approximately 500,000 to 5,000,000 dollars and a period
of about 1 to 2 years.
With respect to the discovery procedure, while someof the respondents had favorable opinions such as it being
possible to collect information in large quantities, many
respondents had negative opinions to the effect that: (i)4 ●IIP Bulletin 2016 Vol.25

heavy burden (cost and time) is required; (ii) the system
is used as a tool to force reconciliation; or (iii) the scopeof discovery should be narrowed down.
(2) Determination of Damages
In the U.S., in many patent infringement lawsuits,
the parties reach a settlement during the lawsuit, and there
are few cases where damages is determined in a
judgment.
Damages is calculated based on either the lost profits
or reasonable royalty.
While it is legally possible to have the losing party
bear the court costs, cases where the court actuallyordered this to happen were not greater than 25% of theentire number of cases. In respect to this, many
respondents answered that this practice should be carriedout for those who conducted malicious activities but notfor those who did not.
While punitive damages can be legally awarded up
to a ceiling of three times the actual damages, cases
where such amount was actually awarded were notgreater than 50% of the entire number of cases. In thisrespect, many respondents answered that it is difficult toobtain an order for punitive damages.
With respect to the system for damages in general,
while some respondents answered that fewer rules areallowing a flexible determination for each case, some
respondents answered that the predictability of damages
is low or that the system is causing a heavy burden (costand time) with respect to the lawsuit.

With respect to damages determined by the court,
there were opinions stating that the amount is not
sufficiently high and appropriate or that the predictability
is low.
It is provided in laws that the losing party bears thecourt costs and approximately 60 to 80% of the actual
costs are ordered to be paid. In respect to this, many
respondents supported this practice or regarded it aseffective to exclude patent trolls.
Punitive damages are not provided in laws. In
respect to this, many respondents answered that theyshould be allowed only in exceptional cases and should
not be overly punitive or that patent infringement lawsuits
are economic issues and the infringer should not bepunished beyond necessity.
With respect to the system of damages as a whole,while there were many respondents who answered thatthe court decision finding infringement is rendered in a
prompt and inexpensive manner thanks to the practice ofdetermining damages and the fact of infringement inseparate lawsuits, there were also a number of
respondents who answered that the determination ofdamages is frequently expensive and requires a long
period of time.

2 The U.K.
(1) Collection of Evidence
The disclosure procedure is similar to the discovery
procedure of the U.S; it is a system for both parties todisclose information relevant to the lawsuit. However, it
is different in that the scope of disclosure is specificallydesignated at the time of the application and only theparts allowed by the court are subject to disclosure.
Generally, the disclosure procedure requires a cost of
approximately 250,000 to 1,000,000 pound and a period
of about a few months.
With respect to the disclosure procedure, while some
respondents regard it as a costly system, many
respondents answered that the burden is limited or thatthe scope of disclosure has become almost appropriate.

3 Germany(1) Collection of Evidence
The inspection procedure is a system to, mainly
prior to the filing of an action, mandatorily collectevidence at the facility, etc. of the alleged infringer upon
the demand of the patentee.
Generally, the inspection procedure requires a costof approximately 50,000 to 250,000 euro and a period of
about 6 to 12 months.
The inspection procedure is only used in about 5 to
10 % of all patent infringement lawsuits that are filed.
This is due to reasons such as the patentee believing thatthe infringement activity may be proved by purchasing
and conducting a survey on the infringing product that issold in the market.
With respect to the inspection procedure, many
respondents had favorable opinions such as: (i) thesystem makes a surprise attack on the alleged infringer;(ii) it is functioning well; (iii) demands are easily
accepted; and (iv) mandatory collection is conducted
promptly.

(2) Determination of Damages
In the patent infringement lawsuits in the U.K.,
determination of infringement and of amount of damages
are made in two separate lawsuits. In many cases, theparties reach a settlement with respect to damages after
the court has rendered a judgment finding infringement.
Damages is calculated based on either lost profits or
reasonable royalty.

(2) Determination of Damages
In patent infringement lawsuits in Germany, as withthe case in the U.K., determination of infringement andamount of damages are made in separate lawsuits, and theparties reach a settlement with respect to damages after
the court has rendered a judgment finding infringement.
Damages is calculated based on either lost profits,
profits earned by the infringer or reasonable royalty.

●

IIP Bulletin 2016 Vol.25

5 ●With respect to damages determined by the court,
many respondents felt that damages calculated based on
the license fee (this is because damages is often
calculated based on the ordinary license fee) is slightly
insufficient.
With respect to the practice of having the losing
party bear the court costs, it is possible to have such party
bear a certain amount of money prescribed by laws and inmany cases, more than half of the attorney's costs isordered to be paid. In respect to this, many respondents
answered that a sufficient amount of costs is collectedfrom the losing party and that this practice may serve as adeterrent to annoying lawsuits such as those filed bypatent trolls.
Punitive damages are not awarded. With respect tothis, many respondents were opposed to awarding
punitive damages, stating that punitive damages are
extreme punishment in the case of a standard
infringement case.
With respect to the overall system of damages, whilesome considered it to be working well, some were of theopinion that more focus is placed on injunction inGermany, or that a long period of time is required until
the court renders a judgment awarding damages.
4 France(1) Collection of Evidence
The seizure procedure of France is similar to theinspection procedure of Germany; it is a system tomandatorily collect evidence at the facility of the alleged
infringer upon the request of the patentee. However, thetwo procedures differ in that the seizure procedure has alonger history and the attorneys and judges are used to it.
Generally, the seizure procedure requires a cost of
approximately 12,000 euro and a period of about amonth.
The seizure procedure is used in about 80% of
patent infringement lawsuits that are filed. This is because
the seizure procedure has long been used and thecollection is promptly implemented with the request
being easily accepted.
With respect to the seizure procedure, many
respondents answered that: (i) it is a powerful means bothin a positive and negative way; (ii) it is working well; (iii)the request is easily accepted; and (iv) collection is
promptly implemented.
(2) Determination of Damages
In patent infringement lawsuits in France, as withthe case in the U.S., determination of infringement anddamages are made in one lawsuit.
In calculating damages, the negative economic
impact caused by the infringement (including the lost
profits incurred by the victim), moral disadvantage
caused to the victim, and profits earned by the infringer●(including the knowledge and material obtained by the
infringer through the act of infringement as well as the
profits from investment in sales promotion) are taken into
consideration.
With respect to damages determined by the court,
many respondents were of the opinion that the amount
has nowadays become reasonably satisfactory or that thesmaller amount of damages awarded in France isresulting in fewer lawsuits.
It is provided in laws that the losing party bears thecourt costs, and in many cases, more than half of theattorney's costs is ordered to be paid. While someregarded this practice as a balanced system, others wereof the opinion that the costs borne by such party are lower
than the actual costs sustained by the winning party.
Punitive damages are not awarded. With respect tothis practice, while some thought that such damages
should be allowed with respect to counterfeit products,
many respondents were opposed to this idea andanswered that such practice is incomprehensible based on
the philosophy of the Civil Code or it is an issue to be
dealt with in the penal code.
With respect to the system of damages as a whole,while some were of the opinion that the system is fair andshould be maintained, others suggested that damages
should be slightly increased and that, to that end, laws
have already been provided but the judges are unprepared
to apply the laws.

IV Conclusion
In patent infringement lawsuits, it is often the casefor right holders to collect necessary evidence byconducting search themselves. Yet, it has become
apparent that in cases, for example, where evidence
relevant to the manufacturing process is held by the
defendant, the right holders face difficulties in showing
proof of the fact of infringement. This mainly arose forthe following reasons: (i) the system for collection ofevidence prior to filing an action is not functioning; and(ii) the system for order for production of documents,
which is a powerful tool for showing proof of the fact of
infringement by the alleged infringer, and the system forprotective order, which serves as the basis for collectionof evidence in lawsuits, are not sufficiently functioning.
On the other hand, there were opinions stating that the
low use rate of these kinds of systems do not necessarilymean that they are not functioning, but instead it would
be sufficient if they are used as a last resort, and in thecurrent situation where evidence is voluntarily submitted
through the control of court proceedings thanks to thesesystems, the systems for order for production of
documents or protective order are meaningful.
Moreover, with respect to the discovery procedure of
the U.S., which is a powerful procedure to collect
6 ●IIP Bulletin 2016 Vol.25

evidence through obliging a party or a third party tosubmit evidence in response to the request of the otherparty, while some called for the introduction of such asystem, the vast majority were opposed to such kind ofsystem due to the cost and work hours. However, somedemanded an enforceable procedure for collection ofevidence wherein the alleged infringer would be obliged
to submit sufficient evidence to prove that no
infringement has been conducted to the extent of alleging
non-infringement based on the condition that the patentee
has shown proof to a "sufficient" level to allege
infringement due to reasons such as, in cases where
infringement is suspected to have been carried out within
the plant of the other party, for example,
business-to-business products or software that are difficult
to obtain, it is particularly difficult for patentees to collectevidence or show proof of infringement. Meanwhile, there
were also cautious opinions about enforceable proceduresfor the collection of evidence due to fear of the risk ofabuse of such procedure by patent trolls, etc.
With respect to damages, while some respondents
praised the fact that the amount is more appropriate as aresult of the successive revisions of the Patent Act, there
were opinions that damages determined by Japanesecourts remains low. In addition, there were also some
opinions stating that the amount so determined isappropriate in light of the scale of cases or that it isinappropriate to simply compare the amount with thosedetermined in the U.S.
With respect to the provision for presumption ofdamages (Article 102 of the Patent Act), paragraph (1) ofthat Article which was included with an aim to facilitate
the act of showing proof has not been utilized to a large
extent, due to the obligation to disclose the company's
profit margins. Moreover, many respondents showed
their dissatisfaction with the system to the effect that,while damages has been restricted based on the conceptof the "contribution ratio" that is used in calculating
damages, the ideas for applying such concept as well as
the method of calculation and the grounds therefor havenot been made clear.
In Japan, intellectual property rights should bevalued and used further in the future. Meanwhile, Japan's
intellectual property dispute resolution system should be
examined by taking into consideration the user needs andin light of overseas intellectual property dispute
resolution systems, while maintaining a balanced
intellectual property dispute resolution system so as toprevent the abuse of inappropriate rights.
(Senior Researcher: Keiji MORITA ,Researcher: Takahito WATANABE)

1

2

3

4

For example, see material No. 3 titled "Major opinions raised by●

IIP Bulletin 2016 Vol.25

7 ●the experts with regard to intellectual property dispute" used in
the first meeting of the task force for intellectual property disputesettlement under the Verification, Evaluation, and Planning
Committee of the Intellectual Property Strategy Headquarters.
See pages 2 to 5 of the "Report of the task force for intellectual
property dispute settlement" under the Verification, Evaluation,
and Planning Committee of the Intellectual Property Strategy
Headquarters.
See pages 7 to 10 of the "Report of the task force for intellectual
property dispute settlement" under the Verification, Evaluation,
and Planning Committee of the Intellectual Property Strategy
Headquarters.
See page 18 of the “Intellectual Property Strategy Program
2015,” http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/titeki2/kettei/chizaikei
kaku20150619.pdf