Conflict of jurisdiction The parties in a case pending before the court are prohibited from filing another petition in the same case (Article 142, Code of Civil Procedure). However, Article 142 has been interpreted as not applying to cases involving a conflict of law. There is no procedure for a party to apply to stay proceedings in favour of a foreign jurisdiction and a Japanese court does not automatically dismiss a petition filed by a party concerning a case pending before a foreign court on the same matter. A Japanese court may exercise jurisdiction over the same matter provided it has jurisdiction in accordance with the jurisdictional requirements set out in Question 2. A party can argue that the Japanese court lacks jurisdiction (see below, Motion to dismiss the petition because of lack of jurisdiction). Which court is seized first is irrelevant. Once the foreign court makes its final decision and is recognised as valid in Japan, the Japanese court dismisses the petition on the same matter on the grounds the case is moot. Motion to dismiss the petition because of lack of jurisdiction If the defendant objects to the jurisdiction of the Japanese court, the court can determine the jurisdictional issue first before proceeding further to consider the merits. The court can make an interim judgment on the jurisdictional issue if it is sufficiently developed for the court to make a judicial decision on it (Article 245, Code of Civil Procedure). The court can also consider the merits of the case, and suspend a determination on jurisdiction until it makes a final decision. If the court finds it lacks jurisdiction, the petition is dismissed. If the court finds it has jurisdiction, it generally makes that jurisdictional decision alongside its decision on the merits. Anti-suit injunctions It is not possible to apply for an anti-suit injunction to order the other party not to take any steps in the foreign proceedings.