iז|iˉpjpE\W

 { p iׂN i i file a suit in the Tokyo District Court raise    [The court below affirmed the action raised by X.] bring an action in (before) a court bring suit (for divorce), institute lawsuit,  commence an action to enjoin D from demolishing a building Harris then instituted suit against the insurance company demanding judgment according to the double indemnity provisions of the policy. ߂điׂN The plaintiff filed suit in the Tokyo District Court against the defendant for permission to enforce the foreign judgment in the case.  The plaintiff brought an action for damages against the defendant before the court on the grounds of a defect in the purchased goods. Mikon filed a claim in Tokyo District Court on Monday asserting that defendant infringes 12 patents related to steppers and scanners. ōٔ@ The Grand Bench, Supreme Cour ōٔ@ third Petty Bench@iO@j nٔ@䒆 Addressed to: The Civil Division of Tokyo District Court nٔlZ Tokyo District Court, Civil Division 46 nٔ29 Section 29 of Civil Case of The Tokyo District Court nٔ29 Tokyo District Court, Twenty-Ninth Civil Division nٔ8ٌW@䒆 To: Section Ho, Civil Division Number 8 of Tokyo District Court nٔqx41W For The Tokyo District Court Hachiouji Branch Civil Department Q CASE CLAIMING DAMAGES, ETC. ԍijxxxxA呍cs݊mF Case No. wa-xxxx (2011)  A case seeking declaration of non-existence of a resolution of a shareholders meeting 24Nij8xxxQ Case of Claiming Damages, etc. Case Number (Wa) 8xxx Tokyo District Court, 2012 Es~ߐ\inٔ13N2345j̐Rqɂ퍐̎咣ɂ According to claims asserted by Defendants on the date of questioning for a motion for orders of provisional disposition to stay performance of a duty (Case Number Tokyo District Court 2001 YO #2345) @l̖̐Es~EsґIC̉ߐ\ motion for order of provisional disposition to stay performance of a duty of a director of a juristic person and to appoint a person to deputize the duty ܂͊čƂĂ̒nʕs݊mFi an action demanding a declaratory judgment to confirm non-existence of the status as a director or an auditor ỉCyёICɊւj cs݊mFi a suit demanding a declaratory judgment to confirm non-existence of the resolution of shareholders meeting (on removal and appointment of directors) {cɂĊ呍cs݊mFi an action demanding a declaratory judgment to confirm non-existence of the resolution of shareholders meeting H 13. 12.27 n () 2233 쌠 Case No. Heisei 13 (yo)-2233 -- A case seeking a provisional in junction of copyright infringement 쌠NQ~\pɑ΂R A kokoku appeal against a denial of a petition for a provisional injunction to cease infringing of copyright ٗp֌W݊mF case seeking affirmation of the existence of a contractual labor relationship iɑB erve a complaint on a defendant Bꏊ place of service _ issues, points at issue _Ɋւ铖҂̎咣 parties' arguments on the issues ٘_ oral argument, oral proceeding ٘_I̓ date of conclusion of oral proceedings 1ɂā@sm The defendant declares ignorance about all of "1" 1ɂẮAT˔F߂B The defendant generally admits about 1. ̗]͕̎smB The defendant declares ignorance about the other things. ̑Q͕smB The defendant declares ignorance about the damages of the plaintiff. 咣͑B The defendant disaffirms the claim. ̎咣ɑ΂锽_ counter argument against the plaintiff's claim ̌o the progress of facts a preliminary showing, evidentially support ƂƂ͑aĂȂ we must say that we are not convinced that iו̉z@@1000~ value of the subject matter of the suit:  10,000,000 yen \p󎆊z600~ amount of stamp duty:             600 yen ̌ the reason for the request ̌ɑ΂铚 response of the reason for the request ̎| relief demanded \i\j̎| protection demanded in the motion judgment sought by the parties \̎|ɑ΂铚 answer to the gist of the petitioner ۑS protected rights ۑS̕Kv necessity of provisional relief preliminary pleading, brief, preliminary documents 呍cs݊mFȉׂ the preliminary documents prepared for the action demanding a declaratory judgment to confirm non-existence of the resolution of a shareholders meeting s execution ʊ֌W͈͓̔ɂٌmp attorneys fee that is within the scope of reasonable and probable legal causation ʓI ʓI咣 primary claim principal claim \Ii咣j 񎟓Ii咣j secondary claim alternative claim ؋@ evidences documentary evidence b1 Ko-1 Documentary Evidence # Ko-1 A-1 ӓo^ؖ Certificate of the Registered Seal-Impression of (a person) ҂̕\@ ʎҖژ^Lڂ̂Ƃ Description of Parties: As enumerated@(stated) in the attached list vAv_AqAv| abstract, summary, outline, gist of the case Ă̊Tv summary of facts, outlines of the case ٔ Judge-in-Chief, Presiding Judge ٔL court clerk, secretary of the court iב㗝lٌm legal counsel for (to) the Plaintifflegal counsel for plaintiffs and attorney-at-law Eiב㗝lٌm attorneys-at-law representing the above Plaintiff in the suit E⍲lٗm patent attorney assisting the above-identified attorneys-at-law ⏕Q intervention ⏕Ql plaintiff in intervention (Intervenor) plaintiff in intervention (Intervenor) a third party, a non-party P@퍐RćAɑ΂A200~yтɑ΂{i󑗒B̓7ォxς݂܂ŔN6p[Zg̊ɂx Q@퍐ćAɑ΂A60~yтɑ΂镽xxNxxxxxς݂܂ŔN5p[Zg̊ɂx R@퍐Ђ́Aɑ΂A600~yтɑ΂镽xxNxxxxxς݂܂ŔN5p[Zg̊ɂx S@iהp͔퍐̕SƂBƂ̔߂B The Plaintiff demands judgment that: (1)    The defendant Yamada pay to the plaintiff a sum of 2,000,000 yen together with an amount thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date 7 days after the service of this complaint until full payment of such sum shall have been made; (2)    The defendant Tanaka pay to the plaintiff a sum of 600,000 yen together with an amount thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from xxxxx,  until full payment of such sum shall have been made; (3)    The defendant Chuo Co., Ltd. pay to the plaintiff a sum of 6,000,000 yen together with an amount thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from xx, xx, xxxx until full payment of such sum shall have been made; and (4) Court costs shall be born by (the) Defendant / Defendants. ҂̋߂ٔ @\̎| P@҂́Aʎژ^i1jyсi2jLڂ̊evO𐻑̔AO҂ɕĂ͂ȂȂB Q@҂̕ʎژ^i1jyсi2jLڂ̊evOyтi[p[\iERs[^pn[hfBXNɑ΂Lēnٔsɂ̕ۊǂ𖽂B JUDGMENT SOUGHT BY THE PARTIES 1. Gist of the Petition 1) That the Respondents may not make, sell, or license third parties to make reproductions of any of the programs listed in Parts (1) and (2) of the appended Description. 2) That it be ordered that the possession of the Respondents' programs listed in parts (1) and (2) of the appended Description and hard disks for personal computers into which they have been incorporated be given up into the custody of the bailiff of the Tokyo District Court. F 퍐́Cɑ΂A5~yтɑ΂镽23N61xς݂܂ŔN5̊ɂx Claim for Money The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff money in the amount of 500,000,000 yen as well as money accruing therefrom at an annual interest rate of 5 % during a period starting from June 1, 2011 up to a date when the payment will be completed. TiĺA̎̔ƂƂɁÂƂ̔yщs錾߂B Appellant has prayed for reversal of the judgment of the court below and also for judgments to the following effect together with a declaration that those judgments are amenable to provisional executions. ҂̋߂ٔF B Judgment Sought by the Parties:That the lower court decision be vacated. āA҂́A{߂̐\Ăɋy񂾎łB Therefore, Obligees, et al. have filed this Motion for Order of Provisional Disposition. ͔r߂߂ Plaintiff is seeking an exclusion order (from) nٔ24Nij悘Q @ 퍐@ ⏕Ql@ Case of Claiming Damages, etc. Case Number (Wa) 8xxx Tokyo District Court, 2012 Plaintiff:                 AA. Co., Ltd. Defendant:            BB Co., Ltd.                          Assistant Intervener:  XX Co., Ltd. iɂ́j\ȗRB We have (a) good reason to conclude that JEJ Open court closed-door court session The hearing was held in camera. _A؂ Thus, the appelleefs demonstration cannot rebut the presumption that the appellantfs mother is unknown. iōق́jӌ majority opinion iōق́j⑫ӌ supplemental opinion / supplementary opinion iōق́jΈӌ dissenting opinion ٔ̈ӌ́łB ٔ́ƂӌłB ٔ͂ƍlB ٔ͂ƎvB We are of the opinion that the Japanese court has jurisdiction over the case. ٔ̔f Opinion of this court judgment, decree @씻 grand bench judgment @씻 petty bench judgment RAR court below, original court, lower court, judgment below RiRj the first instance RiRj the second instance A decision, order i The Tokyo District Court has ruled in favor of plaintiff. si The Tokyo High Court today issued its decision denying Defendant's appeal in the lawsuit between Plaintiff. j Result: Judgment of the Third Petty Bench, quashed and decided by the Supreme Court 啶 formal disposition, formal adjudication, Text of the Judgment, Main Text, operative part āA啶̂Ƃ蔻B Accordingly, this court decides as in the Formal Judgments.The Court decrees as the formal adjudication reads. the judgment is rendered as described in the main text ͐{i{jłB nٔ8 This is the original.@ March 27, 2014@@Tokyo District Court, Eighth Civil Division 23N327nE{̎ ٔL Delivery of Court Ruling: March 27, 2011 The Original received on the same day Tokyo District Court Clerk ijF肷 * to find, * Finding that the land ownership had belonged to A, the court approved their rights of inheritance to the land. * We can find no provision explicitly prescribing rules regarding such specific issue as the scope of heirs or their order of succession LF̂Ƃ as found in the foregoing statements ɂi̒N̗͌pɂB The defendant alleges that the plaintiff brought the action as an abuse of his rights. āA{̍sǵC̗pɂB Thus, the enforcement of the alleged patent right falls under the abuse of the right. Ɖ̂ł it is proper to construe that ́Cēx̌x邱ƂȂC퍐ɑ΂āC⏞̐邱ƂłƂׂłB Therefore, the Plaintiff should be permitted to demand the compensation of the Defendant without a further warning ٘_̑S| gist of the whole argument, gist of the entire pleadings ؋ƕ٘_̑S|ɂƎ̎F߂B In view of the evidences and a gist of the entire pleadings, the following findings can be admitted: ҂̐\pB The Petitioners' petition is rejected. {RpB The appeal in this case is dismissed. \ṕA҂̕SƂB The costs of the petition will be borne by the Petitioners. Rp͍Rl̕SƂB Costs of appeal to be borne by appellants. t@C̏̑n쐫ے肷邱Ƃ͌łB It is therefore error to deny creativity in the File formats. ́A悻W[̍\ƂvȎn쐫͂肦ȂƂɒ[Ȍ_𓱂ƂɂȂāAsłB Therefore, the finding of the lower court lacks a rational foundation and leads to the extreme conclusion that a program comprised of modules cannot have creativity. 啶 1. 퍐́Aɑ΂A5~yтɑ΂镽15N115xς݂܂ŔN5̊ɂxB 2. ̗̂]̐pB 3. iהp͂2A1퍐̕SƂAC̗]̕SƂB 4. ̔́AꍀɌAɎs邱ƂłB 5. 퍐SۂƂ5疜~̋Ƃ́AEsƂ邱ƂłB Text of Judgment 1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff money in the amount of 500,000,000 yen as well as money accruing therefrom at an annual interest rate of 5 % during a period starting from January 15, 2003 up to a date when the payment will be completed. 2. The Plaintiff's other claims shall be dismissed. 3. Litigation expenses shall be divided in two, and the one half shall be borne by the Defendant and the other half shall be borne by the Plaintiff. 4. Only the preceding Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed in the present judgment. 5. Provisional execution may be suspended, if the defendant deposits 50,000,000 yen. 啶 1. ̍sʎQ[\tgژ^Lڂ̊eQ[\tg̒Õi̔̔ɂāA퍐AEeQ[\tg̒쌠ɊÂ~LȂƂmFB 2. iהp͔퍐̕SƂB FORMAL JUDGMENT 1. With regard to the sale by plaintiff of used copies of the game softs as per the accompanying list of game softs, we declare that defendant has no right to enjoin the said sale on the basis of its copyright to the game softs as per the list. 2. Costs of litigation shall be borne by defendant. ̎咣ɂׂ͂ėRȂ̂ŁA啶̂Ƃ肻̑ipȂiהp͖iז@89y931̋KɂA퍐ԂŕS邱ƂƂB The Court finds that all the claims of the plaintiffs are without reason, and, therefore, dismisses them as declared in the operative part of this decision, allocating the cost of litigation in accordance with Article 89 and 93, paragraph 1, of the Code of Civil Procedures. ƁA{\́AۑSɂĂ̑aȂƂɋA邩Ap邱ƂƂA\p̕SɂĖiז@KpāA啶̂Ƃ茈肷B Therefore, because the petition in this case does not constitute credible evidence with regard to a protected right, it shall be denied, and with regard to the bearing of the fees of this petition, we apply Article 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and we decide as set forth in the Order. āC{íCP~yтɑ΂镽PTNP15xς݂܂ŔN5̊ɂ̎x߂xŗR̂ŁČxŔFe邱ƂƂB Thus, there is a proper rationale for demanding the compensation in this suit to the extent limiting to payment of 100,000,000 yen as well as payment of money accruing therefrom at an annual interest rate of 5 % within a period starting from January 15, 2003 to a date of completion of the payment. Thus, the demand for the compensation is admitted to the extent stated above. ȏ̂ƂAXYZt@C͒쌠̃vOƂ͔FłAɂF߂邱Ƃła͂Ȃ̂ŁA̗]ɂĔf܂łȂARl̎咣ۑS̑a͂ȂƂׂł邩ARl̖{\p͐łARl̖{R͗RȂ̂ŋp邱ƂƂARp̕Sɂiז@܏{A攪AOꍀ{̋KeKpāA啶̂Ƃ茈肷B In accordance with the above, we (the Court) cannot recognize XYZ Files as a program within the meaning of copyright. As there are no other evidentiary materials that would lead to such a conclusion, there is no need for further consideration. We must say that there is no evidentiary support for appellants' claim of protected rights, so the lower decision dismissing the claim was correct. As there was thus no basis for this appeal, we dismiss it. Costs of appeal, pursuant to application of the provisions of Articles 95, 89, and 93(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to be borne in accordance with the order. ȏ̂Ƃł邩CRl̖{\̂ʎژ^O()C()y(l)Lڂ̃vOɌW镔͗R邪Cژ^(O)Lڂ̃vOɌW镔͗RȂBāCƌ_ꕔقɂ錴啶ꍀ̂ƂύX邱ƂƂC\pyэRp̕SɂĖiז@96C89C92yё93KpāC啶̂Ƃ茈肷B Because of the above, there are grounds for the portion of the Appellant's petition in this case which relate to the programs described in sections (a), (b), and (c) of Appendix I, but there are no grounds for the portions which relate to section (d) of that Appendix. Accordingly, we modify the original decision, which differs in part in its conclusion from the above, as set forth in part 1 of the Order, and with regard to the bearing of the cost of the petition and the cost of the appeal, applying Articles 96, 89, 92, and 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we decide as set forth in the Order. ȏɂ΁A{eQ[\tǵA쌠@ɂuf̒앨vɊYA퍐ɂĔЕzLȂƂ͖炩ł邩A̗]̓_ɂf܂łȂA~̕s݊mF߂錴̖{íARB From the foregoing, it is evident that as the instant game softs are not "film works" as defined in the Copyright Act, defendant has no right of distribution. Thus without going so far as to decide the other issues, plaintiff's claim for the declaration that defendant has no right of injunction is well grounded. ȏ̂ƂłA̗]̑_ɂĔf܂łȂATil̍~͗RȂB As above stated, without going so far as to decide the other issues, we may say that appellant's petition for an injunction is unfounded. FeiFej claim allowed, claim granted i㋉RŔjfFe The Court of Appeals of the State of California affirmed this judgment. \pyэRp͂񕪂C̈Rl̕SC̗]𑊎̕SƂB The costs of the petition and of the appeal shall be divided in half, with the Appellant bearing one half and the Appellees bearing the remainder. F̌ an error in fact-finding @̉߁EKp̌ an error in construction or application of law R̔f͐łB the decision of the court below is justifiable R̔f͂̓R̂ƂYꂽłB The trial court decision has forgotten this obvious point. ́̓_ŌƂĂB the trial court erred in considering  - - - - - - ́ÂƂ𓖑ȒOƂĔĂ̂ł邩A̔fɌ͂ȂB The lower court's decision rests on this obvious assumption, and it is therefore not in error. ҂̎咣 allegations of the parties ȂC؋ɂĂCƂƂɂĂ̑a̐S؂𓾂邱Ƃ͂łȂC̉E咣͍̗płȂB because we are not convinced even from evidences - - - - - - -, we cannot accept the above argument of the Appellees 퍐̎咣͎łB defendant's claim is unfounded 퍐̎咣́C̗płȂB this Defendant's insistence cannot be accepted 퍐̉E咣͔F߂ȂB Thus, the above-stated Defendant*s insistence is not acceptable. āARl̉E咣ɂ͗RȂB Therefore, there is no basis for this claim of appellant. ƂƂ́CF߂đȂƂłB the Appellees themselves recognize and do not dispute that ƂƂ͓ҊԂɑȂB there is no dispute between the parties Ɣf̂͑vƂׂłB it would be premature to decide that Ƃ͔̂펯łB This goes against common sense. ƂlłB he notion that - - - - - - -  is fundamentally in error. Rlp؋́Cٔ̔fEɑȂB Evidences cited by the Appellant are insufficient to sway us in the decision. ƂƂɂȂ It follows that EEEEE ̂ł邩AƂB (so that) it may safely be said that ́AȉɏqׂƂA쌠@ɋK肷ł - - - - are (film works) within the meaning of Copyright Act. Article 2 (3) as stated blow ƂƂqׂĂɂƂǂ܂B It says no more than that - - - - - - 咣悤 as has been asserted (alleged, maintained, contended, claimed, argued) by the respondent L̂悤 Oq̂悤 q̂悤 `̔ɂ悤 as stated earlier as stated above as found in the foregoing statements from the facts stated above, we conclude that - - - - -as shown in the Supreme Court Judgment of October 16, 1981 - ܂łȂA܂łȂ it goes without saying tha ȂقǁAmɁAEEEEEA it is true, - - - - - but 傪̑ꉿimĂƂɂ͓Y̔_ɒ߂鉿zœY𔄔Ȃł낤ƎЉʔOF߂ꍇɂ́AYꉿiɊւ͗vf̍ɂƂׂłB It follows that there should exist a mistake in regard to an essential element of the juristic act if current social standards acknowledge that the seller who knows the market price would not agree to sell the said shares at the price as set out in the sales agreement of the said shares. ʂ̎ɏƂ炵 * The determination is made on the totality of the circumstances.    * Its interlocutory nature would allow us to examine the contrariety to our order public in light of all the facts relevant at the time of the execution Yssׂ͌{ɂB the administrative act amounts to censorship