Japan Compliance

The ability to obtain information and evidence from an opposing party is a cornerstone of modern civil litigation. However, the philosophy, mechanisms, scope, and practical realities of this process—often broadly termed "discovery" in the United States—differ dramatically between Japan and the U.S. For US litigants,

Engaging in civil litigation invariably involves financial outlay. Beyond the emotional and time commitments, parties must consider the tangible expenses associated with pursuing or defending a claim. A critical question for any litigant, particularly businesses involved in cross-border disputes, is: who ultimately bears these costs? Specifically, if you win a

Initiating cross-border litigation brings a host of unique procedural challenges, and one of the very first—and most critical—is ensuring proper "service of process." For US companies contemplating legal action against a Japanese entity, or for those whose Japanese counterparts need to be formally brought into US

Confidentiality is the lifeblood of the attorney-client relationship. Clients must be able to communicate openly and honestly with their legal counsel to receive effective advice, and attorneys must be able to maintain that confidence. In many common law jurisdictions, like the United States, the "attorney-client privilege" (ACP) provides

Winning a lawsuit can be a long and arduous process. But what if, during the months or even years it takes to obtain a final judgment, the defendant dissipates their assets, destroys the subject matter of the dispute, or continues an infringing activity that causes irreparable harm? A favorable judgment

Intellectual property (IP) rights—patents, trademarks, copyrights, designs, trade secrets—are foundational assets for businesses in the modern global economy. When these rights are infringed or contested, effective judicial recourse is critical. Japan, recognizing the unique complexities and technical nature of IP disputes, has developed a sophisticated and specialized judicial

In our previous discussion, we outlined Saishin (再審), or retrial, as an extraordinary and highly circumscribed remedy in Japanese civil procedure for challenging a judgment that has already become final and binding. Unlike an appeal, which addresses errors before a judgment achieves finality, Saishin seeks to overturn a finalized judgment

The principle of res judicata (kihanki-ryoku) ensures that once a civil judgment in Japan becomes final and binding, it is generally conclusive, preventing the same dispute from being re-litigated. However, what if it later transpires that this supposedly final judgment was tainted by extremely serious flaws, such as falsified evidence,

Civil litigation is not solely about the final judgment that resolves the ultimate dispute. Along the way, courts issue numerous interim "rulings" (決定 - kettei) and "orders" (命令 - meirei) that address procedural matters, evidentiary disputes, interim relief, and other issues incidental to the main proceedings.

Accessing a nation's highest court is typically a privilege reserved for cases of significant legal import or fundamental error. In Japan's civil justice system, while a direct "Jōkoku" appeal (appeal as of right) to the Supreme Court is available on exceptionally narrow constitutional or

Seeking redress from a nation's highest court is the final step in the appellate ladder, typically reserved for cases involving fundamental errors or issues of profound legal significance. In Japan's civil litigation system, the "Jōkoku" appeal (上告) to the Supreme Court is one such

For litigants in Japan, as in most countries, the Supreme Court represents the ultimate arbiter of legal disputes. However, access to this apex court in civil cases is not automatic; it is carefully circumscribed by specific procedural gateways. Understanding these pathways—primarily the "Jōkoku" appeal (上告), which is

Receiving an unfavorable judgment from a trial court is often not the end of the legal road. In Japan's civil litigation system, a party dissatisfied with a final judgment rendered by a District Court (or, in certain instances, a Summary Court) has the right to seek a review

In today's globalized economy, commercial disputes frequently transcend national borders. A civil judgment obtained in Japan may have significant implications for related legal proceedings in the United States, and conversely, a U.S. judgment might be sought for recognition or enforcement in Japan. A critical aspect of this

The principle of finality is a cornerstone of any mature legal system. Once a civil judgment in Japan becomes "final and binding" (確定 - kakutei), meaning ordinary avenues of appeal are exhausted or time-barred, it gains powerful res judicata effect (kihanki-ryoku), preventing re-litigation of the decided claims. The

When a civil lawsuit in Japan reaches its conclusion and a judgment is rendered, its most widely discussed effect is often kihanki-ryoku (既判力), or res judicata—the principle that prevents the same matter from being re-litigated between the same parties. However, the impact of a Japanese civil judgment, particularly one

The principle of "res judicata," Latin for "a matter judged," is a cornerstone of legal systems worldwide, reflecting the fundamental societal interest in the finality of litigation. Once a court has rendered a final and binding judgment on a matter, the same parties should not be

Beyond proceeding to a full trial or reaching a negotiated settlement, Japanese civil procedure offers parties two other decisive, unilateral methods to conclude a lawsuit based on a concession of the merits: "Waiver of Claim" (請求の放棄 - seikyū no hōki) by the plaintiff, and "Acknowledgement of Claim&

The vast majority of civil disputes, both in Japan and internationally, are resolved not by a full trial and a judge-imposed verdict, but through settlement. Reaching a mutual agreement allows parties to control the outcome, save costs, and often preserve relationships. In Japan, litigants typically have two primary avenues for

A plaintiff initiates a lawsuit with the expectation of seeing it through to a judgment. However, circumstances can change during the course of litigation: new evidence might emerge, a settlement might become attractive, or the plaintiff might simply reconsider the viability or necessity of continuing the action. In Japanese civil

While previous articles have explored how third parties might voluntarily intervene in ongoing Japanese lawsuits to protect their interests, what happens if a crucial legal interest—the very right or obligation being litigated—is transferred to a third party during the proceedings, and that successor doesn't choose to

Civil lawsuits can often be lengthy processes, and during their pendency, the circumstances of the litigants can change significantly. An individual party might pass away, or a corporate party might undergo a merger, acquisition, or demerger. Such events raise a critical question: what happens to the ongoing lawsuit? Japanese civil

Multi-party lawsuits, where several plaintiffs or defendants are grouped into a single proceeding, present unique challenges for managing evidence. A crucial question arises: if one party submits a piece of evidence, can that evidence be considered by the court when assessing the claims or defenses of the other parties involved,

In an increasingly interconnected world, a single act by a business can sometimes cause widespread, relatively small-value harm to a large number of individuals, or infringe upon collective interests that are difficult for any single person to protect effectively. While the United States has its well-known "class action"

Civil lawsuits are not always confined to the original plaintiffs and defendants. Often, the outcome of a dispute can significantly affect the rights or legal interests of third parties who were not initially part of the action. Japanese civil procedure provides several mechanisms for such third parties to "intervene&