Technical Advisors System

Home > Further Information > Technical Advisors System

Technical Advisors in Intellectual Property Lawsuits

What is the technical advisors system?
The technical advisors system was established by the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure in 2003 and introduced into practice in April 2004. This system aims at achieving higher quality of court proceedings and judgments in specialized fields of lawsuit such as intellectual property cases, in which scientific and technical matters are often disputed. Under this system, experts who have a wealth of knowledge in relevant scientific fields are asked to participate in court proceedings as technical advisors. They provide judges and parties, from the viewpoint of a fair and neutral adviser, with explanations on the technical matters involved in the lawsuit. These explanations are helpful for judges to have better understanding on the technical aspects and to narrow down legal and factual issues of the case.
Why are technical advisors helpful in intellectual property lawsuits?
In intellectual property lawsuits and in particular patent cases, issues often relate to complex and highly advanced technology. Technical advisors participate in court proceedings of such lawsuits and provide explanations, from a fair and neutral viewpoint, on the technical matters at issue, based on their expertise in their respective scientific fields. By doing so, they assist judges in conducting proceedings and making decisions more accurately and expeditiously. The contribution of technical advisors is also expected to enhance public confidence in judicial determination on intellectual property issues.
How many technical advisors have been appointed so far, and in what fields are they specialized? How many technical advisors have participated in court proceedings?
Technical advisors in the field of intellectual property lawsuits are appointed from among leading experts nationwide, including university professors and researchers in the area of cutting-edge sciences and technologies. We have around 200 technical advisors at present. They cover a wide range of scientific fields, including electronics, machinery, chemicals, information communication, and biotechnology. Courts designate the most suitable technical advisors from a wide range of candidates, on a case-by-case basis, considering the nature and content of the dispute.
By April 1, 2019, a gross total of more than 2,100 technical advisors have participated in court proceedings of intellectual property lawsuits.

Illustration: Circle graph; This graph shows the composition of the expert committee by field.

What status do technical advisors have?
Technical advisors are part-time officials appointed by the Supreme Court from among experts with scientific knowledge and experience. Upon appointment, they are given the status of court official. However, unlike ordinary court officials, they serve as a court official only when they are designated as technical advisors and thereby participate in court proceedings. Technical advisors belong to a court as designated by the Supreme Court, and the court designates and assigns technical advisors to appropriate cases. Their term of office is two years.
In what kind of procedures do technical advisors participate?
Technical advisors, by the decision of a court, participate in either proceeding for clarifying issues and evidence, evidence examination proceeding, or settlement conference. Among these proceedings, the advisors usually participate in the proceeding for clarifying issues and evidence, which is called “preparatory proceeding for oral argument” (benron-junbi tetsuzuki in Japanese, hereinafter referred to as “preparatory proceeding”), and provide oral explanation on technical matters in the proceeding.
In some intellectual property cases, “explanatory session” may be held to understand technical matters more adequately during a preparatory proceeding with technical advisors’ participation.

Flow of court proceedings

 Court procedure starts with a filing of an action to the court. The parties present their arguments before judges, and through proceedings, factual and legal issues are clarified. Relevant evidence is examined, and oral argument is concluded when judges think that the case is ready for determining the merit. Finally, the decision is rendered. In intellectual property lawsuits, there are two types of litigation; civil litigation (infringement litigation) so as to determine the rights and obligations of parties, and administrative lawsuits seeking revocation of the board decisions of the Patent Office.

 In addition to final judgment, a case is terminated by settlement reached between the parties, and withdrawal of a lawsuit is another way of termination.

Illustration: Flow of a lawsuit

Clarification of issues and evidence

 This proceeding is to identify the issues by hearing arguments of both parties and to determine whether evidence submitted by the parties is relevant and necessary to resolve the dispute. Judges and parties also use this proceeding to discuss how to proceed with the case. This proceeding may be conducted in a courtroom, but usually in a room other than a courtroom (such as a conference room).
In some intellectual property cases, “explanatory session” may be held during this proceeding.

Examination of evidence

 Through the examination of documents, witnesses, parties themselves, expert witnesses and objects for inspection, courts are given enough materials to determine the merit. In patent lawsuits, examination of witnesses is relatively rare.

Settlement

 While the case is pending before a court, the parties may compromise to solve their dispute through negotiations, thereby terminating the lawsuit.

How are technical advisors assigned?
 A court, when it finds necessary, decides that technical advisors should be involved in either preparatory proceeding, evidence examination proceeding, or settlement conference. Before the decision, however, the court is required to hear the parties’ opinions in the case of preparatory proceeding and evidence examination proceeding and to obtain consent of the parties in the case of settlement conference. Once the decision is made, the court selects suitable technical advisors from among those who belong to the court and assigns them to the case, considering the nature and content of the dispute.

Illustration: Procedural flow for assignment of technical advisors

How do technical advisors differ from judicial research officials and expert witnesses?
 In intellectual property lawsuits, technical matters are often at issue. In order to resolve such disputes fairly and expeditiously, courts have sought contribution and cooperation from various experts such as judicial research officials and court-appointed expert witnesses in addition to technical advisors. Judicial research officials are full-time court officials. Judicial research officials specializing in intellectual property cases have been assigned to courts, 11 officials to the Intellectual Property High Court, 7 officials to the Tokyo District Court, and 3 officials to the Osaka District Court. Those officials have expertise in various technical fields such as machinery, chemicals and electronics, and as ordered by the court, carry out necessary research on technical matters involved in patent, utility model and other intellectual property cases. From April 2005, they may, with the permission of a presiding judge, ask questions to the parties during oral proceedings so as to clarify the issues of the case (Article 92-8 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Unlike technical advisors who participate only in cases to which they are assigned, judicial research officials are supposed to participate in proceedings of all cases relating to intellectual property rights - such as patent rights and utility model rights—in which technical matters are disputed. In a dispute over highly specialized or advanced technology, both judicial research officials and technical advisors may participate in the proceedings. In such a case, technical advisors, who have expertise in specific technical fields, and a judicial research official, who has technical knowledge in general and is well versed in the patent/utility model prosecution procedure, work together to assist judges. Court-appointed expert witnesses provide expert opinions on specific matters as requested by the court, and their opinions may be adopted as evidence and relied on in the judgment. On the other hand, technical advisors participate in the proceedings as the court’s advisers and provide explanations on technical matters disputed in individual cases. Their opinions do not constitute a part of the evidence.

Comparison among technical advisor, expert witness, and judicial research official
 Technical advisorExpert witnessJudicial research official
StatusPart-time court officialnot a court officialFull-time court official
Term of officeTwo yearsNo termNo statutory term in general
RemunerationAllowance paid for each caseFee for an expert opinionSalary paid for full-time official
Possibility to be questioned by the partiesNot expected to be questionedMay be questioned on the expert opinionNot expected to be questioned
Nature of explanation or opinionProvide easy-to-understand explanations on scientific matters as the court's adviser. The explanation may not be adopted as evidence.Provide expert opinion on specific matters as requested by the court. The opinion may be adopted as evidence and relied on in the judgment.Carry out research on necessary matters as ordered by the court and report the research results. The research results may not be adopted as evidence.
What is "explanatory session" and what do the technical advisors do?
 Explanatory session is a proceeding in which a court hears explanation on technical matters from parties. It is conducted on the date for oral argument or the date for preparatory proceedings for lawsuits seeking rescission of JPO decision and infringement lawsuits. A typical explanatory session held by the Intellectual Property High Court is as follows.
 Explanatory session may be conducted at the final stage of preparatory proceedings or on the first date for oral argument. In addition to the judges and the judicial research official in charge of the case, three technical advisors who are selected from experts in the technical field relevant to the case attend the session. The technical advisors review the necessary documents and information from the case records prior to the session. In the explanatory session, each party makes a presentation for 30 minutes to one hour on technical matters such as the details of the invention, the prior art, and common general technical knowledge available as of the time of the filing of the application. Presentation software is often used to clarify points at issue with visual effects. Samples or video recording of the patent embodiment or defendant's product and the diagrams indicating correlations between the patented invention and the defendant's product by coloring the corresponding parts are also used in infringement cases.
 After the presentation, all the participants of the session will engage in a free discussion including questions to the party on the contents of the presentation or unclear points in the allegations and evidence, and the explanations on technical matters by the technical advisors. It is expected that the issues in the case are clarified and the understanding of the technical matters of the case are enhanced through this process.
 Photos from explanatory session can be seen below.
  • Photo 1: Explanatory session conducted on the date for oral argument.
  • Photo 2: Attorneys for the plaintiff making a presentation.
  • Photo 3: Attorneys for the defendant making a presentation.

image: Photo1 Explanatory session conducted on the date for oral argument

image: Photo2 Attorneys for the plaintiff making a presentation

image: Photo3 Attorneys for the defendant making a presentation

In what kinds of cases are explanatory sessions held?
Explanatory sessions are held not only for cases in which the issues relate to advanced or special technical fields, but also for a wide variety of cases in which it is considered appropriate for litigation to reflect the general understanding shared among those skilled in the art, or in which common general technical knowledge in the art becomes an issue.
Is the explanation provided in an explanatory session recorded?
 The explanation provided by parties in an explanatory session is retained as part of the case records when the materials used to provide the explanation are submitted to the court as documentary evidence. On the other hand, technical advisors provide explanations with the goal of improving the court’s understanding of technical matters as its advisors. Their explanations do not constitute evidence and are therefore generally not included in the case records (see Q7). However, if explanations by technical advisors are necessary to clarify the issues in a case or for other reasons, additional measures to record them may be taken.
What would be helpful reference to gain a better understanding of technical advisors?
 The procedures in which technical advisors are to participate, as well as the procedures for their assignment and appointment/dismissal are prescribed in Articles 92-2 to 92-7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
 Introductions in English are available from the following articles (“Technical advisors” are mentioned as “expert commissioners”.) ; Katsumi Shinohara, “A Retrospective and a Prospective Look at the First Year of the Intellectual Property High Court” , Ryuichi Shitara, “A NEW TREND IN IP LITIGATION” , Ichiro Otaka, “Recent Developments regarding the Intellectual Property High Court of Japan
How will the technical advisors system be utilized in intellectual property lawsuits?
 In order to achieve more fair and expeditious proceedings and decisions on highly specialized and technical matters disputed in intellectual property lawsuits, courts will further promote the use of technical advisors and upgrade the technical advisors system, taking advantage of various occasions such as practical case-study seminars for technical advisors.
  1. Further Information
    1. Technical Advisors System
    2. Statistics
    3. Publications
      1. Guidebook of the IP High Court
      2. Publications
      3. Intellectual Property Infringement Litigations and Recent Movement toward System Reforms
      4. Topics(from 2016)
      5. Topics(from 2005 to 2015)
      6. Two Expert Commissioners delivered lectures at the meeting of the IP Divisions Society for Study.
      7. Delegation of the American Intellectual Property Law Association visited the IP High Court.
      8. Chief Judge Shinohara Had a Talk with Newscaster Maoko Kotani.
      9. Justice of High Court of Australia Visited IP High Court.
      10. Judge Randall R. Rader of United States Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit and Other Distinguished Guests Visited IP High Court.
      11. Guests from Overseas
      12. Judge of the IP High Court Made a Speech at the University of Washington
      13. Malaysian Mission Visits IP High Court
      14. Judge of Patent Court of Korea Visits IP High Court
      15. Judges of IP High Court Participate in Fourth International Judges Conference on Intellectual Property Law
      16. Mansfield Fellow undergoes training at IP High Court
      17. Intellectual Property Workshop Held
      18. Delegation of German Chamber of Patent Attorneys Visits IP High Court
      19. Delegation of the American Intellectual Property Law Association Visits IP High Court
      20. Delegation from Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry of France Visits IP High Court
      21. Judges of IP High Court Participate in 14th Annual Conference on International Intellectual Property Law & Policy
      22. Delegation from PRC Visits IP High Court
      23. Judge of Tokyo District Court Attends International Conference at University of Washington
      24. Judge of IP High Court Participates in International Conference in PRC
      25. Delegation from PRC Visits IP High Court
      26. Delegation of American Intellectual Property Law Association Visit IP High Court
      27. Speeches by Judge of Tokyo District Court at International Conference in Brussels Made Public
      28. Judge of IP High Court Participate in 15th Annual Conference on International Intellectual Property Law & Policy
      29. Judge of Intellectual Property High Court Attends International Conference at University of Washington
      30. Judge Randall R. Rader of the Federal Circuit and Other Guests Visit IP High Court
      31. IP High Court Judge Participated in International Conferences at Fordham University (U.S.A.)
      32. Delegation of American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Visited IP High Court
      33. Judge of Intellectual Property High Court Attends International Conference at University of Washington
      34. Chief Justice of Supreme Court of Korea Visits IP High Court
      35. Vice President of Supreme Arbitration (Commercial) Court of Russian Federation Visits IP High Court
      36. Delegation from Intellectual Property Rights Tribunal of Higher People’s Court of Beijing Visits IP High Court
      37. Delegation of American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Visits IP High Court
      38. IP High Court Judge Attended International Conference in People's Republic of China
      39. IP High Court Judge's Participation in Summer Seminar on American Patent Law held at University of Washington, U.S.A.
      40. Courtesy Visit by Judge from District Court of Munich I
      41. Judge Randall R. Rader of Federal Circuit and Other Guests Visit IP High Court
      42. Vice President of the Supreme Arbitration (Commercial) Court of the Russian Federation Visits the IP High Court
      43. Participating in an international conference hosted by Fordham University in the U.S.
      44. Delegation of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Visits the IP High Court
      45. Visit by the Justice of the High Court of Australia
      46. IP High Court Judge's Participation in International Conference Hosted by the University of Washington
      47. Vice President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Visits the IP High Court
      48. Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam Visits the IP High Court
      49. Delegation of the US Bar Association Visits the IP High Court
      50. Delegation of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Visits the IP High Court
      51. Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, CAFC visited Japan and participated in the Joint Judicial Conference on Japan and U.S. Intellectual Property Rights
      52. President of the Federal Court of Justice of Germany Visits the IP High Court
      53. Delegation of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Visits the IP High Court
      54. IP High Court Judge's Participation in an International Conference Hosted by Fordham University
      55. Minister of Law and Human Rights of Indonesia Visits the IP High Court
      56. IP High Court Judge's Participation in an International Conference Hosted by University of Washington
      57. IP High Court Judge’s Participation in an International Conference Hosted by Fordham University
      58. Visit by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Delegation to the IP High Court
      59. Speeches Given at the Seminar Entitled “Current Situation and the Future of Intellectual Property Cases and Patent Systems in the United States and Japan” Hosted by AIPPI JAPAN
      60. Visit by International Students from the Overseas Study Program of the World Customs Organization (WCO) to the IP High Court
      61. Visit by the Research Group on Intellectual Property Strategy from the Republic of the Union of Myanmar to the IP High Court
      62. Visit by the US Bar / JPO Liaison Council Delegation to the IP High Court
      63. Visit by Judge of the High Court of Delhi, India to the IP High Court
      64. Participation by IP High Court Judge in an International Conference Held at the University of Washington
      65. Visit by Vietnam IP Leadership Training Program Participants to the IP High Court
      66. Visit by JAUIP Seminar Participants to the IP High Court
      67. Visit by a Judge on the Federal Patent Court of Germany to the IP High Court
      68. Visit by Members of the Legislative Affairs Commission of China
      69. Visit by a Delegation from the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
      70. Visit by a Delegation from the German Patent Attorney Bar Association
      71. Visit by International Students from the Overseas Study Program of the World Customs Organization (WCO)
      72. Visit by Judge of the High Court of Delhi, India
      73. Visit by Presidential Council on Intellectual Property of Korea
      74. Meeting with Judge James Robart of the United States District Court
      75. IP High Court Chief Judge's Participation in International Conference Hosted by University of Washington
      76. USPTO IP High Court Chief Judge's Visit to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
      77. IP High Court Chief Judge's Visit to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
      78. CAFC Meeting with Chief Circuit Judge Prost of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
      79. USITC IP High Court Chief Judge's Visit to the United States International Trade Commission (USITC)
      80. IP High Court Chief Judge's Visit to Federal Judicial Center
      81. 2014JAUIP Seminar Participants Visit the IP High Court
      82. 2014Fordham Judge's Participation in an International Conference Hosted by Fordham University
      83. IP High Court Judge's Participation in European Patent Judges' Symposium
      84. IBA IP High Court Chief Judge’s Participation in the 2014 IBA Conference in Tokyo
      85. the Federal Republic of Germany to the IP High Court
      86. List of Cases with Full Text Judgments
      87. Visit by Participants in Training Course on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights under the WIPO Funds-in-Trust/JAPAN
      88. IP High Court Judge's Participation in IP Seminar in Indonesia
      89. Visit by International Students from the Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies (GSICS), Kobe University
      90. Visit by a Presiding Judge of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court
      91. the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China
      92. 2015INTA Visit by Chairman of INTA
      93. Participation in the International Symposium Commemorating the 10th Anniversary of the Intellectual Property High Court
      94. 2015AIPLA Visit by the Delegation of the American Intellectual Property Law Association
      95. 2015WCO
      96. Meeting with English Solicitors
      97. The Centre for Intellectual Property & Information Law (CIPIL) at University of Cambridge, England
      98. Meeting with Prof. Sir Robin Jacob
      99. Meeting with the Hon. Mr. Justice Richard Arnold and Hon. Mr. Justice Colin Birss
      100. Seminar of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys
      101. 2015Fordham
      102. Stanford University
      103. 2015 US Bar
      104. IPO of China
      105. 2015 LESI
      106. Korean Patent Attorneys Association
      107. 2015CASRIP
      108. The University of St. Gallen
      109. 2015JAUIP
      110. International Trade Court of Thailand
      111. Mr. Guenter Schmitz of the German Patent
      112. . 2015 Judge from Germany
      113. Participation in the 2015 International IP Court Conference held in Korea
      114. 2015IPO
      115. Students from Thailand
      116. Visit by the Director of the Training Department of the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and others
      117. Visit by Participants in 2015 Training Course on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights under the WIPO Funds-in-Trust/JAPAN
      118. Visit by Members of the Department of State Law of the National People’s Congress of China
      119. Visit by Professor and Students of Northwestern Law School
      120. Visit by Presidents and Others of Foreign Patent Attorneys Associations
      121. Visit by Vietnam IP Leadership Training Program Participants
      122. Participation in International Conference of IP Scholars Asia at Singapore Management University (SMU)
      123. Visit by Director General Gurry of WIPO
      124. Visit by Prof. Dr. Peter Meier-Beck, Judge of German Federal Court of Justice
      125. Participation in Tokyo University of Science IP Forum 2016
      126. 2016 AIPLA
      127. 2016_WCO
      128. Visit by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, and Others
      129. Visit by Indonesian Training Program Participants
      130. Participation in the 2016 International Conference on IP in Korea
      131. Visit to U.S. Law Firms
      132. Participation in Brazil Symposium at George Washington University
      133. Participation in U.S./Japan Symposium at CAFC
      134. Meeting with Lawyers in Germany
      135. Participation in Symposium at EPO
      136. Visit by Judge Matthias Zigann of Regional Court Munich of Germany
      137. Visit by Clerk of Civil Affairs Division of Supreme Court of Indonesia and Others
      138. Participation in INTA 2016 Annual Meeting
      139. Visit by JAUIP Seminar Participants
      140. Visit by Students of Master's Program in European and International Business Law at the University of St. Gallen
      141. Visit to Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA) of Kyoto University
      142. Visit by Members of the Department of Economic Law and Others of the National People’s Congress of China
      143. Participation in International Conference held at University of Washington, U.S.
      144. Participation in International Conference held at Univercity of Washington,U.S-2
      145. Participation in 2016 International IP Court Conference in Korea
      146. Visit by Members of Directorate General of Intellectual Property of Indonesia
      147. Visit by Delegation from Chamber of Patent Attorneys (German Public Law Corporation) (Patentanwaltskammer)
      148. Participation in AIPPI World Congress in Milan
      149. Participation in Europe/Japan Mock Trial in Paris
      150. Visit by Trainees of Operational Patent Examination Training Program
      151. Visit to Cour de Cessation in France by Chief Judge of IP High Court
      152. Visit by Chairman of International Trademark Association, and Others
      153. Visit by Minister of Law and Human Right of Indonesia, and Others
      154. Visit to Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA) of Kyoto University (second visit)
      155. Visit by Chief Judge of District Court of Indonesia and others
      156. Visit by Trainees of “Japan-Mexico Knowledge Co-Creation Program for the Strategic Global Partnership-Intellectual Property Rights[Short term]”
      157. Participation in International Conference in China (Shanghai)
      158. Participation in Symposium on Patent Litigation in Europe and Japan 2016
      159. Participation in Japan-China-Korea IP Symposium
      160. Visit by Presiding Judge Rho Tae-Ak, Seoul High Court of Korea
      161. Visit by Presidents and Others of Foreign Patent Attorneys Associations
      162. Visit by President of the Licensing Executives Society International and others to the IP High Court
      163. Scheduled Holding of International Judicial Symposium on Intellectual Property(provisional name) 2017
      164. Visit by Foreign Students from Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies (GSICS), Kobe University
      165. Visit by Participants in 2016 JPO/IPR Training Course
      166. Exchange of Views with Judges of Delhi High Court
      167. Participation in Workshop Held at State of Andhra Pradesh, India
      168. Scheduled Holding of Judicial Symposium on Intellectual Property / TOKYO 2017
      169. IPEC Judge and CIPA President from Britain Visit IP High Court
      170. Visit by AIPPI President and Other Members
      171. Visit by WIPO Seminar Participants
      172. The holding of IP High Court Workshop
      173. Visit by AIPLA Representatives
      174. Visit by International Students under the WCO Scholarship Program
      175. Participation in the International Conference at Fordham University
      176. Meeting with Chief Judge Prost of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
      177. IP High Court Chief Judge’s Visit to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
      178. Visit to IP law firms in the U.S.
      179. Participation in 2017 INTA Annual Meeting
      180. Visit to the European Union Intellectual Property Office
      181. Visit by the President of LES International
      182. Visit by JICA/WIPO Trainees
      183. Participation in International Conference held at University of Washington, U.S.
      184. Visit by Participants in FY2017 JPO/IPR Training Course
      185. Visit by Participants of Nagoya University’s CALE Summer Seminar
      186. Visit by JICA Trainees in 2017
      187. Visit by Participants in St. Gallen University’s Executive Master of European and International Business Law Program
      188. Case of the Mock Trial for Day 1(Oct.30)of Judicial Symposium on Intellectual Property/TOKYO 2017
      189. Participation in the 2017 International IP Court Conference in the Republic of Korea
      190. Visit by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam
      191. Visit by Senior Judges of the United States Court of Appeals
      192. Visit by Collaborative Researchers from China
      193. Start of Judicial Symposium on Intellectual Property / Tokyo 2017
      194. End of Judicial Symposium on Intellectual Property / Tokyo 2017
      195. Visit by Judge O’Malley of CAFC and Judge Haase of Dusseldorf District Court
      196. Visit by Presiding Judge Hwan-Soo Kim from the Patent Court of Korea, and Other Guests
      197. Visit by U.S. Attorney(Adjunct Professor) James D. Stevens and one Other Guest
      198. Visit by US Bar Liaison Council Members
      199. Visit by Trainees of Japan-Mexico Knowledge Co-Creation Program for the Strategic Global Partnership- Intellectual Property Rights [Short term]
      200. Visit to JAXA Tsukuba Space Center
      201. Results of Mock Trials held in Judicial Symposium on Intellectual Property/Tokyo 2017 (non-password protected version posted)
      202. Lecture at theJapan-China Joint Seminar on IPR Enforcement
      203. Visit by Attorney at law Dirk Schuessler-Langeheine of Germany
      204. Visit by Legal Apprentices from France's Ecole National de la Magistrature
      205. Visit by International Students Studying at Kobe University Graduate Course
      206. Visit by Instructors of the Judicial Training Center of Indonesia
      207. Visit by a Legal trainee from Germany
      208. Lectures in Training Program in Japan for Knowledge Co-Creation Program with Indonesia for IP Litigation
      209. Visit by Stanford Law School Students
      210. Visit by JIPII Seminar Participants
      211. Scheduled Holding of Judicial Symposium on Intellectual Property / TOKYO 2018
      212. Visit by a Delegation of the American Intellectual Property Law Association
      213. Participation in the 20th Anniversary International IP Law Symposium
      214. Visit by International Students under the WCO Scholarship Program
      215. Visit by IPOS Assistant Chief Executive and Other Delegation Members
      216. Participation in the INTA 2018 Annual Meeting
      217. Visit by AIPPI President and Members
      218. Announcement of newly translated judgment
      219. Update of IP Judgments Database
      220. Visit by JICA/WIPO Trainees
      221. Visit by Participants of the Meiji University Law in Japan Program 2018
      222. Visit by Graduate Students of Keio University
      223. Visit by JICA Trainees in 2018
      224. Update of IP Judgments Database
      225. Scheduled Holding of Judicial Symposium on Intellectual Property / TOKYO 2018
      226. Visit by a Professor and Students from the Graduate School of Information Technology and Intellectual Property,Dankook University in Korea
      227. Update of IP Judgments Database
      228. Update of IP Judgments Database
      229. Visit by the members of the Boards of Appeal of EPO
      230. Visit by Professor Christoph Ann from Technical University of Munich
      231. Participation in International Symposium 2018 Held at German Patent and Trade Mark Office on Patent Litigations in Japan and Germany
      232. Visit by Judges from Germany, U.K. and U.S.
      233. Opening of Judicial Symposium on Intellectual Property/Tokyo 2018
      234. Closing of Judicial Symposium on Intellectual Property/Tokyo 2018
      235. 【JSIP】The slides and the interlocutory judgment are posted
      236. Participation in an International Conference held in Ottawa, Canada
      237. Visit by Judge Cho Jong Hyun of Goyang Branch of Uiejeongbu District Court of Korea
      238. Visit by Students of the University of Washington, U.S.A
      239. Visit by IPO Representatives from the U.S.
      240. Visit by lecturers for JETRO European IP Seminars
      241. Participation in the 2018 International IP Court Conference in the Republic of Korea
      242. Attendance at FICPI-JAPAN Osaka Symposium 2018
      243. Visit by the Delegation of the China Trademark Association
      244. Participation in the First Intellectual Property Judges Forum Held at WIPO Headquarters
      245. Visit by Attorneys from Germany, France, the U.K. and the U.S.
      246. Visit by Participants in 2018 JPO/IPR Training Course
      247. Visit by Judges from ASEAN Member Countries
      248. Participation in Judicial Symposium on Intellectual Property
      249. Photos from the Japanese mock trial
      250. Photos from the German mock trial
      251. Photos from the French mock trial
      252. Photos from the UK mock trial
      253. Photos from the US mock trial
      254. Photos from the panel discussion
      255. Update of IP Judgments Database
      256. Visit by Judges of Indonesia
      257. Update of IP Judgments Database
      258. Visit by Legal Apprentices from France's Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature
      259. Visit by the Director of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property of Indonesia and Other Officials
      260. Update of IP Judgments Database
      261. Update of IP Judgments Database
      262. Update of IP Judgments Database
      263. Update of IP Judgments Database
      264. Visit by Delegation from Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court
      265. Visit by Delegation from AIPLA
      266. Scheduled Holding of Judicial Symposium on Intellectual Property / TOKYO 2019
      267. Three in One: Global Patent Trials, Held in New York
      268. Meeting with Chief Judge Prost of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
      269. IP High Court Chief Judge's Visit to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
      270. IP High Court Chief Judge's Visit to the United States International Trade Commission (USITC)
      271. IP High Court Chief Judge's Visit to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
      272. IP High Court Chief Judge's Visit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY)
      273. Participation in International Conference at Fordham University
      274. Visit by a Delegation from the International Law Section of the State Bar of California
      275. Visit by a Delegation from Court of Justice of Kingdom of Thailand
      276. Visit by International Students under the WCO Scholarship Program
      277. Participation in the INTA 2019 Annual Meeting
      278. Visit by AIPPI President and Other Guests
      279. Update of IP Judgments Database
      280. Update of IP Judgments Database
      281. Attendance at the Munich International Patent Law Conference 2019 (June 28)
      282. Visit by Members of the Boards of Appeal of EPO (July 5)
      283. Visit by JICA/WIPO Trainees (July 8)
      284. Visit by Participants in the Meiji University Law in Japan Program 2019 (July 10)
      285. Update of IP Judgments Database
      286. Visit by Judges of Indonesia (August 2)
      287. Visit by the Delegation of the China Trademark Association (September 30)
      288. Visit by Mr. Bernhard Schröder from the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (September 3)
      289. Attendance at the Global Series 2019 (October 14 to 16)
      290. Participation in the International IP Court Conference in the Republic of Korea (From October 16 to 18)
      291. Visit by JICA Trainees in 2019 (September 4)
      292. Visit by the Delegation of Padjadjaran University, Indonesia (October 18)
      293. Visit by a Long-term Trainee of the APIC-JIPII (September 13)
      294. Judicial Symposium on Intellectual Property / TOKYO 2019
      295. Visit by Judges and Attorneys who speak in JSIP2019(September 24)
      296. Closing of Judicial Symposium on Intellectual Property/Tokyo 2019
      297. Opening of Judicial Symposium on Intellectual Property/Tokyo 2019
      298. Photos from the mock trial of Australia
      299. Photos from the mock trial of China
      300. Photos from the mock trial of India
      301. Photos from the mock trial of Korea
      302. Photos from the mock trial of Japan
      303. Photos from the mock trial of Panel discussion
      304. 【JSIP2019】Slides presented in the mock trials and mock trial judgments are posted.
      305. 【JSIP2019】The Symposium will be also broadcast on the internet.
      306. Update of IP Judgments Database
      307. Update of IP Judgments Database
      308. Visit by Participants in 2019 JPO/IPR Training Course (November 19)
      309. Participation in the 2019 Intellectual Property Judges Forum Held at the WIPO Headquarters in Geneva (From November 13 to 15)
      310. Update of IP Judgments Database
      311. Visit by US Bar Liaison Council Members (October 18)
      312. Visit by Professors and Students from the Graduate School of Information Technology and Intellectual Property, Dankook University, Korea (December 12)
      313. Update of IP Judgments Database
      314. Update of IP Judgments Database
      315. Visit by a Member of the Supreme Judicial Council of Armenia (January 22)
      316. Visit by Participants in 2019 JPO/IPR Training Course (February 4)
      317. Lecture for Indonesian Judges (February 6, at the Red-Brick Building of the Ministry of Justice)
      318. Visit by International Students Studying at the Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies, Kobe University (February 12)
      319. Update of IP Judgments Database