A judgment rendered by a foreign court is automatically “recognised” and effective in Japan if all the requirements set out in Article 118 of the CCP are satisfied. These are that: The judgment to be recognised is a final and binding judgment rendered by a foreign court Litigation is most frequently used to settle large commercial disputes in Japan. The Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), provides the following system to resolve disputes efficiently: The court conducts preparatory proceedings to clarify and ascertain the material issues and evidence at an early stage. These issues are mainly identified through the exchange of written briefs and evidence, and periodic hearings. Since 2020, it has been possible to hold court preparatory proceedings using web conferences. Examination of witnesses and parties must be conducted as efficiently as possible, focusing on the material issues legitimately in dispute identified in the preparatory proceedings. The court manages proceedings largely at its own discretion, although it will also listen to, and take into account, party preferences. The court is not usually inquisitorial with respect to fact-finding and will rarely ask questions in a witness examination. Instead, the court relies on the parties to make arguments and obtain evidence. Court proceedings themselves are adversarial. The standard of proof for a claim is whether it is highly likely that the claim is supported by the facts, and therefore true. When multiple claims are at issue in a single litigation, and some are not disputed by the parties, or the parties have already exhausted their arguments on them, the court can give judgment on those elements before giving judgment on the remaining claims (Article 243, CCP). The court can also, at its discretion, separate the oral proceedings (Article 152, CCP) relating to those claims and give judgment on them independently. This judgment is given to mitigate the complexity of litigation with multiple legal issues, and to facilitate the litigation by focusing on the material issues. Arbitration There are two main arbitration associations for commercial disputes, the: Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (JCAA). International Chamber of Commerce Japan (ICC). Arbitration is not often used to settle commercial disputes: eighteen disputes were filed with the JCAA in 2020. Arbitration proceedings are usually governed by the rules provided by the arbitration association, which is chosen by the parties. The appointment of arbitrators depends on what the parties agree to in their arbitration agreement. At the end of the proceedings, unlike in a mediation, the association will reach a decision which is binding. The proceedings and fact-finding in an arbitration are usually adversarial, as they are conducted by individuals from each side. However, the association can sometimes choose to make inquiries of each party. Mediation Mediation is usually conducted by the courts, and less commonly, the JCAA. Mediation is used more often for family disputes than for commercial disputes. Each party, in turn with the mediation panel (comprising of one judge and more than two citizens designated by the court) speaks with the goal of reaching an agreement that is acceptable to both parties. Unlike arbitration, the court does not issue a binding decision, and simply facilitates the parties reaching an agreement. Proceedings and fact-finding are mainly inquisitorial. It is the panel that questions the parties to establish the relevant facts and arguments. There are currently no online dispute resolution (ODR) programmes for court-related meditation. Japan is lagging behind other countries, for example the US, in this respect. IP Disputes Administrative proceedings are frequently used in intellectual property (IP) disputes. Customs proceedings are available for an IP rights holder, including patent rights, to prevent the import or export of items infringing those IP rights. The IP rights holder can obtain a decision on their petition for an injunction within two to three months of starting the proceedings. A panel of expert advisers appointed by the customs bureau advises the customs director on technical issues relating to an alleged patent infringement. Under a mediation system commenced in 2019 for IP-related disputes, a party can request a three-member committee (including one IP department judge and two experienced IP lawyers and/or patent attorneys) to lead a negotiation between the parties and offer a settlement. This allows the parties to seek a settlement under the guidance of experienced committee members. This procedure is quicker (usually three hearings, including the hearing where the committee proposes the settlement) and more flexible (for example, the parties can easily attend hearings through a video conference system) than usual litigation procedures. The Tokyo District Court or the Osaka District Court has jurisdiction over this type of mediation. In addition, invalidity proceedings at the Japan Patent Office (JPO) are available for a third party to contend directly to the JPO that an issued patent is invalid. The invalidity proceedings can be used together with, or independently from, court proceedings and/or the customs proceedings. Court proceedings are adversarial. Customs and JPO invalidity proceedings combine inquisitorial and adversarial approaches. The applicable standard of proof for a claim to succeed in court and JPO invalidity proceedings is whether it is highly likely that facts that give rise to the claim exist, but the standard in customs proceedings is not clearly established.