11

The Roles of the Research Judges of the Japanese Supreme
Court in the Intellectual Property Cases（*）
Invited Researcher: Chaiyos Oranonsiri（**）

Today, the intellectual property cannot be utilized properly to encourage the growth of the Japanese
economy. It is because the intellectual property has not yet been appropriately protected. Though theattempt to protect the intellectual property has been succeeded once by the harmonization of theintellectual property laws under TRIPS Agreement, it seems that the intellectual property still needs more
protection.
The harmonization of the law enforcement is expected to be the next step for the protection of theintellectual property. It is well accepted that the Research Judges of the Japanese Supreme Court can playtheir effective roles in the intellectual property cases to strengthen the intellectual property protection.
Nevertheless, it remains a question whether or not their roles will result to the harmonization of the law
enforcement in the intellectual property cases. To prove this doubt, the responsibilities of the Research
Judges have been scrutinized with the tasks discovered in the current situation of the intellectual property
and the jurisdiction of the intellectual property cases in Japan. It is likely that the Research Judges can playtheir roles to harmonize the law enforcement in the intellectual property cases. To reach this goal, however,some suggestions have been provided.

Ⅰ Introduction
The intellectual property nowadays plays asignificant role in the global economy. However,there are a lot of conflicts concerning theintellectual property as well. One of them is theinfringements of the intellectual property. It has
to be agreed that, according to the hightechnology of equipment and the low morality of
mankind, infringements have been more complex
and worldwide.
There have been several attempted toharmonize the intellectual property laws.
Although
there
is
the
AgreementonTrade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights, Including Trade in Counterfeit Goods(TRIPS), it comes to the fact that the intellectual
property cannot be properly protected by justhaving the appropriate laws. There must be theappropriate enforcement of the said laws too.
The Japan Intellectual Property Strategy was
introduced under the policy of ‘the intellectual
property – based nation’. This is the crucial stepfor Japan in using the intellectual property toencourage her economic growth. However, there
seem to be some problems in doing so. The
inappropriate protection of the intellectual
property has been regarded as the obstruction for

the growth of Japanese economy.
The aim of this research is to examine
whether or not the Research Judges of theJapanese Supreme Court can play their roles inharmonizing the law enforcement to protect the
intellectual property. It bases on the idea that theharmonization of the law enforcement in theintellectual property cases will be the next step tostrengthen the protection for the intellectual
property. Therefore, the roles of the Research
Judges of the Japanese Supreme Court in theintellectual property cases will be discussed. To
fulfill this research, the current situation of theintellectual property and the jurisdiction of theintellectual property cases in Japan will also be
scrutinized. Consequently, the result will indicate
some fruitful suggestions.

Ⅱ The Current Situation of theIntellectual Property in Japan1

The intellectual property in JapanThe Japan Intellectual Property Strategy
seems to be a guideline for the country to movetowards the successful future. It primarily
concentrates upon the creation, protection andexploitation of the intellectual property.

(*)

This is a summary of the report published under the Industrial Property Research Promotion Project FY2010
entrusted by the Japan Patent Office.
(**) Research Justice of the Supreme Court, Thailand

IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20● 1 ●All types of the intellectual property havebeen included under this policy. Although thewords ‘the industrial property’ and ‘theintellectual property’ have been used in Japan, thefour types of the industrial property, i.e. patent,utility model, design, and trade mark are definedas the types of intellectual property.
2

The current situation of the intellectual
property in JapanThe current situation of the intellectual
property in Japan can be accessed through theIntellectual Property Strategic Program 2009. A
lot of measures have been flourished and several
measures under the Strategy can be regarded as
successful.
Arguably, the Japan Intellectual Property
Strategy was introduced by following the‘pro-patent’ policy of the United States ofAmerica. However, it may have to accept that theother type of intellectual property, the so-called‘Soft Power’, 1 has been gradually important in
the industrial areas. Also, there seem to be someproblems in the area of the protection of theintellectual property. One problem is theinfringements of the intellectual property, both
domestic and international areas. The otherproblem is the situation of patent’s instability.
The Japanese Government has worried on the
instability and unpredictability of the patent, since
the Supreme Court judgment of the ‘kilby’ case.2
3

Some suggestions: a view from thecurrent situation of intellectual property
in Thailand

The word ‘the intellectual property’ has beenused to represent all types of the intellectual
property in Thailand. Generally, most of theintellectual property laws in Thailand are sui

generis.3

In Japan, the industrial property is dealt withby the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry. However, thecopyright, the other type of the intellectual
property is dealt with by the Agency for Cultural
Affairs, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology. It is different from thesituation in Thailand where all of the above rights
are dealt with by the Department of Intellectual
Property (DIP), the Ministry of Commerce.
It is convenient for the Thai Government to
run her policy upon the intellectual property
issues through this Department. The DIP canserve as a coordinator in dealing with the otherorgans, both domestic and international areas, for
the intellectual property matters. In contrast,
there are several organs concerning with theJapan Intellectual Property Strategy. The Strategy
Headquarters has declared that it will perform theoverall coordination if the implementation of themeasure has been delayed because of theconnection of more than one Ministry or agency.4
Recently, Thailand has noticed the effect ofthe ‘pro-patent’ policy. Many patents have been
granted during these decades and the patentees
have exercised their rights by prohibiting theimportation of goods related to their patents or
asking for compensations. Civil and criminalcases have been litigated in the courts. Thesesituations may involve with the questions of theinvalidity of patent per se.
There is no controversial in Thailand related
to the ‘double track’ system. According to the
Patent Act B.E.2522 (1979), the patent, grantedby the DIP, can be revoked on the basis ofinvalidity by the court’s judgment. Although
Thailand is a duel judiciary system, the litigations
related to the decisions of the authorities in thepatent or trade mark registrations have not been
regarded as the administrative cases.

Ⅲ The Jurisdiction of the Intellectual
Property cases in Japan1

The jurisdiction of theproperty cases in Japan

intellectual

In the Japanese court system, Summary
Courts and Family Courts hardly deal with theintellectual property cases. There are three typesof courts that usually deal with the intellectual
property cases, namely: District Courts; High
Courts and the Supreme Court.
(1) District Courts
In the Japan Intellectual Property Strategy,
Japan has put forward the proposal to concentratejurisdiction for the civil intellectual property
cases to the Tokyo District Court and the Osaka
District Court. The Code of Civil Procedure wasamended in 2003 to introduce specific jurisdiction
for these cases. One is exclusive jurisdiction forthe certain types of intellectual property. The
other is optional jurisdiction for the other types ofintellectual property.
The above law provides that the cases
related to patent right, utility model right, circuit
layout utilization right and author’s right as to the● 2 ●IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

program work must fall under the jurisdiction ofeither the Tokyo District Court or the Osaka
District Court.5 However, the civil cases related
to design right, trade mark right, author’s rights(excluding the author’s right as to the programwork), publication right, neighboring right, plant
breeder’s right and cases pertaining to
infringements of business interests by unfair
competition may be brought either to the Tokyo
District Court or the Osaka District Court, orother District Courts which normally have thejurisdiction upon the said cases.6
The criminal litigation for the intellectual
property case is also available in Japan. The
ordinary jurisdiction provided for in the Code of
Criminal Procedure will be applied to theintellectual property case.
(2) High Courts
There are eight High courts in Japan, locatedin the cities in different parts of the country. They
have their own territorial jurisdiction over theirareas. Furthermore, there are six branches
throughout the country, and the Intellectual
Property High Court as the special branch of theTokyo High Court.
(3) The Intellectual Property High Court
The Intellectual Property High Court
adjudicates the civil intellectual property cases
which have been appealed from District Courts. A
quorum of five judges in the Intellectual Property
High Court may conduct the case. Furthermore, itwill adjudicate the actions against appeal/trial
decisions made by the JPO. Its judgments can beappealed to the Supreme Court.
There is no specific jurisdiction for thecriminal intellectual property cases appealed fromall District Courts. Therefore, the normal
jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure
will be applied.
(4) The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is the highest court inJapan. A quorum of the Justices is either theGrand Bench or the Petty Bench. In practice, acase, if permitted to appeal, will be assigned to
the Petty Bench at the beginning. If the caseinvolves a constitutional issue, except when there
is a precedent upon the same issue, it will betransferred to the Grand Bench.

IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

2Some comments: a comparison to thelitigations of the intellectual property
cases in Thailand

In Thailand, there are two Courts dealing
with the intellectual property cases, namely theCentral Intellectual Property and International
Trade Court (CIP&ITC) and the Supreme Court.
Since the other Regional IP&IT Court has not yet
been established, the CIP&ITC, nowadays, has
the jurisdiction all over the country.
The CIP&ITC deals with both civil andcriminal cases related to the intellectual property.
In each case, two professional judges and an
associate judge will form as a quorum. 7
Furthermore, there are legal officers in assisting
the judges to adjudicate the cases. The judge canalso appoint an expert to give his or her opinion
on the intellectual property case.
In Thailand, the defense of the invalidity ofpatent has been raised frequently in the criminalcases. Therefore, the judges have to consider theissue of the invalidity of patent in these criminalcases as well. The plaintiffs have to prove
whether or not such patents are eligible to beprotected by law.
In Japan, if the civil intellectual property
cases have not been litigated in the Tokyo District
Court or the Osaka District Court, the ordinary
jurisdiction provided for in the Code of Civil
Procedure will be enforced. It means that the saidcases will be litigated in District Courts all overthe country. Consequently, the appeals for thesecases will go to the other High Courts which havethe ordinary jurisdiction under the Code of Civil
Procedure over the cases. The jurisdiction for thecriminal intellectual property cases is as similaras the other criminal cases in Japan.

Ⅳ The Roles of the Research
Judges of the Japanese Supreme
Court in the Intellectual Property
Cases
1

A Research Judge of the JapaneseSupreme Court

The title of ‘the Research Judge’ is not an
ordinary position of a Japanese judge. 8 It is aposition for a court official, the so-called ‘judicial
research official’ (Chosakan). Seemingly, a judge
can be assigned to this position because there is
no explicit qualification for the judicial research
official. Furthermore, the clause that the Supreme● 3 ●Court may assign a judge to a judicial research
official was added as the original Supplementary
Provisions (3) of the Court Act since 1949.
(1) Qualification
A Research Judge of the Supreme Court will
be assigned from the judges in the inferior courts,
due to their skill and experience. Some Research
Judges being in charge with the civil matters are
selected because of their knowledge andexperience in the intellectual property laws. They
will deal with the intellectual property cases in
the Supreme Court.
(2) Further training
As the intellectual property laws are
selective subjects in the universities, the judges
may have never had the knowledge related tothese laws before. The Legal Training andResearch Institute (LTRI) will provide several
programs to support the assistant judges and thejudges to be able to handle their work properly.
The judges can choose to attend the training forthe intellectual property cases as their
Specialized-Field Workshop. The assistant judges
and the judges will have a chance to experience
the intellectual property practices from thecertain places such as private companies.
(3) Responsibilities
The responsibilities of the Research Judges
are to assist all the Justices of the Supreme Court
in dealing with the cases. There are two methods
in doing the research by the Research Judges.
One is the specific instruction method. The otheris the prior research method. 9 The former
method is the responsibility of the Research
Judges to conduct the research as ordered by theJustice. The latter method is the way of doing a
research without the specific order by the Justice.
(4) The differences between the Research
Judges of the Supreme Court and the
Judicial Research Officials of theInferior Courts
There are two differences between thepositions of the Supreme Court and the inferior
courts. One is the persons who are appointed andthe other is the responsibilities. The Supreme
Court takes an advantage from the Supplementary
Provisions (3) to assign the inferior courts’ judges
to work as the Research Judges. For theintellectual property issue, most of the judicial
research officials in the Intellectual Property
High Court, the Tokyo District Court and the

Osaka District Court have been appointed fromthe examiners of the JPO.
In the Supreme Court, the intellectual
property cases will be assigned to the Research
Judges who are in charge with the intellectual
property cases, while the judicial research
officials in the Intellectual Property High Court
and the Intellectual Property Divisions in theTokyo District Court and the Osaka District Court
will be appointed and handle the intellectual
property cases exclusively, due to their expertise.
The judicial research officials of the inferior
courts will support the judges mostly in thetechnical aspects of the cases.
2

The roles of the Research Judges in theintellectual property cases

The problems of the instability of the patentand the jurisdiction of the so-called ‘nontechnological cases’ will be picked as the tasks to
examine the roles of the Research Judges.
Generally, it may be assumed that the Research
Judges can play their roles effectively and even to
harmonize the law enforcement in the intellectual
property cases. For instance, the Research Judges
usually work on the precedent basis. The
intellectual property cases will be handled in thesimilar way as the previous cases. The inferior
courts will be virtually bound by the legal matters
decided directly by the Supreme Court. As aresult, though there are a few intellectual
property cases in the Supreme Court, theResearch Judges can still play their roles inharmonizing the law enforcement among the
judicial courts themselves.
If there is no precedent on the said issue, theResearch Judges have to do the comparative
researches. By this practice, the Japanese
intellectual property laws may be interpreted in
the similar way to the decisions in the othercountries. It can be regarded as the way toharmonize the law enforcement in theinternational level.
The Research Judge may give his or her
opinion according to the way on which theintellectual property cases should be carried. To
do it efficiently, the Research Judges have todevelop their own skill and knowledge upon theintellectual property practices. In this case, theharmonization of the law enforcement in theinternational level may be occurred.
The Research Judge may be able to assist theJustices in drafting their judgments. It is expectedthat the judgment should be accurate, correct and● 4 ●IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

easy to understand, especially on the legal aspectof the controversial issue. This will be a directcommunication from the judiciary to the otherorganization.
The Japanese Government has been worriedby the situation that the patent invalidation can bestated in two different ways. This situation
relates to the confidence on the judgments.
Seemingly, there are two approaches concerning
this issue. The first approach is the judicial
knowledge upon the intellectual property laws.
This connects to the ‘generalist/specialist’
dichotomy. The intellectual property laws are thespecific ones and they contain some special
elements, separately from the civil laws.
Therefore, some Research Judges who gain theirexperience in the intellectual property issues are
selected to work in the Supreme Court. This will
help the society to confide upon the Supreme
Court’s judgments.
The second approach is about the judicial
knowledge upon the technical issue. It relates tothe concept of the ‘two cultures’.10 This concept
is regarded as the matter of the different
perspectives between the persons in the areas ofliterature and science. It is well applied in thepatent situation too. By the support of the LTRI,
the Research Judges will possess more
information in technology during this time. If the
Research Judges know the way how thetechnician thinks, before applying the laws to theissue, the Supreme Court’s judgments will bewell accepted and reliable.
The task related to the so-called ‘nontechnological cases’ is considered at this stage.
Unlike the ‘technological cases’, the ‘nontechnological cases’ will be adjudicated in District
Courts all over the countries. Subsequently, thecases will be appealed to High Courts, due to theordinary jurisdiction. There is a strong potentialthat similar cases in different courts, or even in
the same court, may be judged in the different
ways. Fortunately, these cases may be finallyappealed to the Supreme Court. Then, theResearch Judges can play their roles to unify thelegal solutions of these cases. If there is a mistakein the judgment of the inferior court, theResearch Judge can submit his or her opinion on
the case to the Justice. Consequently, the legal
issue in this case will be corrected to follow theprecedent. There are also other channels toharmonize the law enforcement even when theappeals are limited on the permission of theSupreme Court, according to the Code of Civil
Procedure Articles 318 and 337.

IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

3 Some remarks: an experience as the
Research Justice of the Thai Supreme Court
The research judge system has been used in
the Thai judicial system. At present, there are the
Research Justices and the Research Judges
working in the Supreme Court, the Court ofAppeals and the Regional Courts of Appeals
respectively. The Research Justices of theSupreme Court are selected from the Presiding
Judges or the Judges of the Court of Appeals andthe Regional Courts of Appeals.
The Research Justices will handle the cases
after the judgments have already been drafted.
The main duty is the proof-reading. Furthermore,
the legal precedent will be reviewed. The
researches may be required to support or against
the drafts. The Research Justices can also play
the additional roles to strengthen the law
enforcement in the intellectual property cases.
The ‘generalist/specialist’ dichotomy will beconsidered. In some countries, the judges known
well in the intellectual property issues may berequired to handle the said cases. That is a reason
why the Justices and the Research Justices having
knowledge and experience in the intellectual
property laws have been selected to work for theDivision of the Intellectual Property andInternational Trade in the Thai Supreme Court.
For the Japanese Supreme Court, therefore, the‘generalist’ should be deliberately defined. If the‘generalist in the legal principles’ is preference,
the Research Judges may have to possess theknowledge of the intellectual property laws too.
This qualification may be added for the judges in
the inferior courts who are assigned to work in
the Japanese Supreme Court.

Ⅴ Conclusion and Suggestions
Japan has played a leading role in the worldof innovation for a long time. It may be a time thatJapan will play a leading role for the protection of
the intellectual property. Facing the crucial
problem in protecting the intellectual property,
Japan has to find the suitable way to solve her
problem.
The progress of the human resources,
according to the hard working of the LTRI, hasbeen fabulous. It is likely that the Research
Judges of the Japanese Supreme Court can playtheir roles to harmonize the law enforcement in
the intellectual property cases.

● 5 ●To reach this goal, however, some important
issues should be reminded. The judgment of thecourt of justice is not merely for the settlement
between the parties. The judgment always
reflects the social norm. Additionally, thejudgment may sometimes be used to indicate an
appropriate way for the society. Therefore, thejudgment, especially of the Supreme Court, mustbe rational and accurate. Making a balance
between the rights of the intellectual property
owners and the public interests is always thetough task for the judiciary. The subtle role,rather than the active role, may be eligible.
Secondly, when the foreign laws or opinions
have been applied to the society, it should beensured that the said laws or ideas are suitable tothe society. One practice may be suitable for one
society, but not to the other societies. As a result,it may be better to learn from the other countries,
not to duplicate them.
Finally, the recent experience should bestudied carefully. The intellectual property laws
were once harmonized by the TRIPS Agreement.
Today, the intellectual property has not yet been
appropriately
protected
asexpected.
Harmonization is a beautiful word that the whole
sectors should join with harmony. Therefore,
harmonization does not mean that one sector
must learn and upgrade its law enforcement tothe same criteria of the other sector. It meansthat every sector should sincerely participate andlisten to each other. If the communication can dofairly from all sectors, the ideal harmonization of
the law enforcement for the intellectual property
may be occurred. Subsequently, the intellectual
property will be efficiently protected.

cases related to the above rights which normally fallunder the jurisdiction of District Courts which locatedwithin the jurisdiction of the Tokyo High Court, theNagoya High Court, the Sendai High Court and the
Sapporo High Court must fall under the jurisdiction of
the Tokyo District Court. If the said cases generally go
to the District Courts which located within thejurisdiction of the Osaka High Court, the Hiroshima
High Court, the Fukuoka High Court and the Takamatsu
High Court, they must fall under the jurisdiction of the
Osaka District Court.
6
The cases related to these types of intellectual property
are called the non technological cases.
7
An associate judge is a lay person who is an expert in
the intellectual property field.
8This research intends to use the title of the Research
Judges of the Supreme Court to indicate the differences
between the ones who work in the Supreme Court andthe others who work in the inferior courts.
9
See Hiroharu Kitagawa, Saiko Saibansho Chosakan
Seido ni Tsute [Judicial Research Official System of theSupreme Court] in Konnichi no Saiko Saibansho[Supreme Court of Today] (Nippon Hyoron Sha, 1998)10
See C.P. Snow, The Two Cultures, 12th ed (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2009)1

According to the Secretariat of the Intellectual Property
Strategy Headquarters, the ‘Soft Power’ refers tocomics, animation program, movies, games, and othercontents as well as food, fashion, designs, etc. See
Secretariat of the Intellectual Property Strategy
Headquarters, “The Basic Principles of the Third-Term
Intellectual Property Strategy and the Intellectual
Property Strategic Program 2009” (2009) 34:6 AIPPIJournal 347. at 349.
2
Judgment of the Supreme Court, the Third Bench.
Dated 2000/4/11. Case Number 1998(O) No.364.
3
Trade name, on the other hand, is protected by the Civil
and Commercial Code Section 18 and the Penal Code
Sections 271 to 275.
4
See the Basic concepts of the Intellectual Property
Strategic Program 2009.
5
The cases related to these types of intellectual property
are called the technological cases. The said jurisdiction
is divided by the jurisdiction of the courts which
normally have the jurisdiction on these cases. The civil● 6 ●IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20