The cornerstone for determining copyright infringement based on similarity in Japan is the "direct perception of essential expressive features" test. This standard, notably crystallized by the Supreme Court in the Esashi Oiwake case (June 28, 2001), dictates that a later work infringes an earlier one if a person

When a claim of copyright infringement arises in Japan, courts are tasked with determining whether the defendant's work is illicitly similar to the plaintiff's copyrighted work. The overarching legal standard for this is whether one can "directly perceive the essential expressive features" of the

In Japanese copyright law, once a work is deemed to possess the requisite "creativity" (sōsaku-sei) to qualify for protection, a further nuanced consideration comes into play when assessing infringement: the level or degree of that creativity. It is a widely accepted principle in Japanese judicial practice and legal

For a work to be eligible for copyright protection in Japan, it must embody "creativity" (創作性 - sōsaku-sei). This requirement is enshrined in Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Japanese Copyright Act, which defines a "work" (chosakubutsu) as "a production in which thoughts

One of the most fundamental yet challenging dichotomies in copyright law globally is the distinction between an idea and its expression. Japanese copyright law, in line with international norms, firmly upholds the principle that copyright protects the specific, creative expression of thoughts or sentiments, not the thoughts, sentiments, or abstract

In the realm of copyright law, determining whether one work is unlawfully similar to another is a critical and often complex task. Japanese copyright jurisprudence has developed a distinct standard for this assessment, famously known as the test of whether one can "directly perceive the essential expressive features"

For international legal professionals engaging with the Japanese civil justice system, an occasional reference by Japanese counterparts to German legal concepts, doctrines, or even specific provisions of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung - ZPO) might seem perplexing. Why would discussions about contemporary Japanese litigation delve into the legal

Interpreting the judgments of any nation's highest court requires careful attention to both the explicit text and the implicit legal context. In Japan, while the concise and authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court form the bedrock of case law, a unique and highly valuable resource often provides deeper

The Japanese judicial system, like many others, provides multiple tiers of review to ensure the correctness and uniformity of legal judgments. After a first instance judgment and a Koso appeal (the first level of appeal, typically to a High Court), the final avenue for challenging a civil judgment is often

The Japanese judicial system provides litigants with avenues to challenge unfavorable judgments rendered by courts of first instance. The primary mechanism for this is the Koso appeal (控訴), a first-level appeal typically lodged from a District Court (地方裁判所 - Chihō Saibansho) or Summary Court (簡易裁判所 - Kan'i Saibansho)

In Part 1 of this series, we established that Indispensable Necessary Co-litigation (Koyū Hitsuyōteki Kyōdō Soshō - 固有必要的共同訴訟) in Japan mandates the joinder of all essential parties for a lawsuit to proceed validly and for its judgment to achieve "Uniformity of Judgment" (gōitsu kakutei - 合一確定) concerning all

In the realm of Japanese civil procedure, most lawsuits involve a single plaintiff against a single defendant, or multiple parties who join voluntarily for convenience (ordinary co-litigation). However, certain types of disputes necessitate the participation of multiple specific individuals as either plaintiffs or defendants for the lawsuit to proceed validly

In the course of civil litigation in Japan, situations arise where a third party, not originally part of the lawsuit, has a significant stake in its outcome. Japanese civil procedure allows such a third party to join the ongoing litigation to assist one of the litigants through a mechanism known

The substantive legal concept of set-off—whereby mutual debts between parties can extinguish each other up to the amount of the smaller debt—is a familiar one in many legal systems. In Japanese civil procedure, when a defendant raises a "defense of set-off" (sōsai no kōben - 相殺の抗弁)

In Japanese civil litigation, a plaintiff may sometimes choose to sue for only a portion of a larger, quantitatively divisible claim—such as a monetary debt or a series of quantifiable damages—while reserving the right to sue for the remaining portion at a later date. This is known as

In Part 1 of this series, we explored the foundational nature of res judicata (Kihanryoku - 既判力) in Japanese civil procedure, focusing on the prevailing "Binding Force Theory" and the three core scenarios—Identity, Preliminary Question, and Contradictory Relationships—where its preclusive effect operates. However, the practical application

The principle of res judicata, known in Japanese as Kihanryoku (既判力), is a fundamental concept in civil procedure globally, and Japan is no exception. It refers to the binding effect of a final and unappealable judgment, ensuring that once a matter has been definitively adjudicated, it cannot be re-litigated between

The principle of lis pendens, known in Japan as jūfuku kiso no kinshi (重複起訴の禁止 – literally, "prohibition of duplicate institution of action"), is a cornerstone of efficient and orderly civil procedure. Its primary objective is to prevent the waste of judicial resources and party efforts that would result from

A declaratory judgment (確認の訴え - kakunin no uttae) in Japanese civil procedure seeks a court's binding pronouncement on the existence or non-existence of a specific right or legal relationship. However, before a court will even consider the merits of such a declaration, the plaintiff must demonstrate a legitimate

Japanese civil procedure, while heavily reliant on the Principle of Party Presentation (Benron Shugi - 弁論主義) where litigants bear the primary responsibility for presenting their case, is not a system where the court remains entirely passive. The Japanese Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) grants courts the "power to clarify&

In Japanese civil procedure, statements made by parties in court can have significant consequences, particularly when they amount to an "admission" (自白 - jihaku). While the concept might seem straightforward, its legal effects and relationship with overarching procedural principles, such as the Principle of Party Presentation (Benron Shugi

The Principle of Party Presentation, known in Japanese as Benron Shugi (弁論主義), stands as a fundamental pillar of civil procedure in Japan. It dictates that the responsibility for collecting and submitting the factual assertions and evidence necessary to support a party's case lies primarily with the litigants themselves,

Navigating civil litigation in Japan requires a precise understanding of its foundational legal terminology. Among the most crucial, yet often subtly confused, concepts are those of an "action" (訴え - uttae) and a "claim" (請求 - seikyū). While seemingly similar, these terms carry distinct legal meanings