Article 77
The Fair Trade Commission is the defendant in the action for the judicial review of an administrative disposition provided for in Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Case Litigation Act (Act No. 139 of 1962) in connection with a Cease and Desist Order, etc.
Article 78
(1) If an action to suspend or prevent an infringement pursuant to the provisions of Article 24 has been filed, the court must issue a ruling ordering the plaintiff to provide adequate security, at the petition of the defendant.
(2) In order to file the petition set forth in the preceding paragraph, the fact that the action set forth in the same paragraph has been filed for a wrongful purpose (meaning for the purpose of acquiring a wrongful benefit, for the purpose of harming another person, or for any other wrongful purpose) must be shown by prima facie evidence.
Article 79
(1) When an action to suspend or prevent an infringement under the provisions of Article 24 has been filed, the court is to notify the Fair Trade Commission to that effect.
(2) When an action set forth in the preceding paragraph has been filed, the court may ask for the opinion of the Fair Trade Commission with respect to the application of this Act in the case concerned or with respect to other necessary matters.
(3) When an action set forth in paragraph (1) has been filed, the Fair Trade Commission may, with the permission of the court, state an opinion to the court on the application of this Act in the case concerned or with respect to other necessary matters.
Article 80
(1) In an action to suspend or prevent an infringement under the provisions of Article 24, the court may, upon petition of a party, order a party to produce any documents necessary to prove the alleged infringement; provided, however, this does not apply if the holder of the documents has justifiable grounds for refusing to produce them.
(2) If the court finds it to be necessary in order to ascertain the existence of a justifiable reason prescribed in the proviso to the preceding paragraph, it may require the holder of the documents to produce the documents. In such a case, no person may request disclosure of the produced documents.
(3) In a case under the preceding paragraph, if the court finds it necessary to disclose the documents prescribed in the second sentence of the preceding paragraph, and to hear the opinions of a party, etc. (meaning a party (or for a juridical person, meaning its representative), an agent (excluding counsel or an assistant), an employee, or other worker of a party; the same applies in paragraph (1) of the following Article), it may disclose the relevant documents to the party, etc. , counsel or an assistant.
(4) The provisions of the preceding three paragraphs apply mutatis mutandis to the production of objects for inspection necessary to prove the alleged acts of infringement in an action to suspend or prevent an infringement under the provisions of Article 24.
Article 81
(1) In an action to suspend or prevent an infringement under the provisions of Article 24, if a prima facie showing of both of the following grounds has been made with regard to a trade secret (meaning a trade secret as provided in Article 2, paragraph (6) of Unfair Competition Prevention Act (Act No. 47 of 1993); the same applies hereinafter) held by a party to the action, the court may order the parties, etc. , counsel, or an assistant not to use the trade secret for any purpose other than pursuing the action, and not to disclose the trade secret to anyone other than a person subject to the order prescribed in this paragraph; provided, however, that this does not apply if the party, etc. , counsel, or the assistant had already acquired or held the trade secret by means other than reading the brief prescribed in item (i) or through the examination or disclosure of evidence prescribed in the same item:
(i) the trade secret held by the party, is written in an already-produced or to-be-produced brief, or included in the contents of already-examined or to-be-examined evidence (including documents disclosed pursuant to the provisions of the paragraph (3) of the preceding Article)
(ii) the party's business activities based on the trade secret under the preceding item are likely to be hindered by the use of the relevant trade secret for purpose other than pursuing the action or its disclosure, and it is necessary to restrict the use or disclosure of the trade secret in order to prevent this.
(2) A petition for the order prescribed in the preceding paragraph (hereinafter referred to as the "Protective Order") must be in writing and include the following matters:
(i) a person to whom the Protective Order to be issued.
(ii) facts that are sufficient for identifying the trade secret to be the subject to the Protective Order
(iii) facts that fall under the grounds listed in each of the items of the preceding paragraph
(3) Whenever the court issues a Protective Order, it must serve a written decision on the person to whom the Protective Order was issued.
(4) A Protective Order takes effect when a written decision is served on the person to whom the Protective Order was issued.
(5) If the court dismisses a petition for a Protective Order, the party may lodge an immediate appeal against the decision.
Article 82
(1) A petitioner for a Protective Order or a person to whom a Protective Order was issued may file a petition for rescission of the Protective Order with the court that retains the case record (if no such court exists, the court that issued the Protective Order) on the grounds that the requirement prescribed in the preceding Article have not been met or are no longer met.
(2) Whenever the court makes a decision on a petition for rescission of a Protective Order, it must serve a written decision on the petitioner and the adverse party.
(3) An immediate appeal may be lodged against a decision on the petition for rescission of a Protective Order.
(4) A decision to rescind a Protective Order must not take effect until the decision becomes final and binding.
(5) When a court has rendered a decision to dismiss a Protective Order, if the court had issued a Protective Order for the protection of the trade secret against any person other than the petitioner for rescission of the Protective Order or the adverse party during the same action in which the Protective Order was issued, the court must immediately notify the person of its decision to rescind the Protective Order.
Article 83
(1) When a court has issued a ruling under Article 92, paragraph (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure with regard to the case record for an action in which a Protective Order has been issued (excluding an action in which all the Protective Orders have been rescinded), if a party requests to conduct an inspection, etc. of the portion of the record that includes the secret provided for in the same paragraph, and the person who make the request was not subject to a Protective Order in the action, the court clerk must, immediately after the request is made, notify the party that filed the petition under the same paragraph (excluding the requestor; the same applies in paragraph (3)) of the fact that such a request was made.
(2) In a case under the preceding paragraph, the court must not allow the party who performed the procedure for the request under the same paragraph to conduct an inspection, etc. of the portion of the record that represents the secret until two weeks have passed since the date of the request (if a petition for a Protective Order against the person who performed the procedure for the request was filed on or before such date, until the date on which the decision on the petition becomes final and binding).
(3) The provisions of the preceding two paragraphs are not to apply if all parties who filed a petition under Article 92, paragraph (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure consent to allow the party who made the request under paragraph (1) to conduct an inspection, etc. of the portion of the record that represents the secret.
Article 84
(1) Whenever an action for damages under the provisions of Article 25 has been filed, the court may ask for the opinion of the Fair Trade Commission with respect to the amount of damages caused by such violations as provided in the same Article.
(2) If a claim for damages under the provisions of Article 25 is made in court proceedings for the purpose of a set-off, the provisions of the preceding paragraph apply mutatis mutandis.
Article 84-2
(1) When a court listed in one of the following items has jurisdiction over an action to suspend or prevent an infringement under the provisions of Article 24 pursuant to the provisions of Articles 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the action may also be filed with the court set forth in the relevant item:
(i) a district court located within the jurisdiction of the Tokyo High Court (excluding Tokyo District Court), Osaka District Court, Nagoya District Court, Hiroshima District Court, Fukuoka District Court, Sendai District Court, Sapporo District Court or Takamatsu District Court: Tokyo District Court
(ii) a district court located within the jurisdiction of the Osaka High Court (excluding Osaka District Court): Tokyo District Court or Osaka District Court
(iii) a district court located within the jurisdiction of the Nagoya High Court (excluding Nagoya District Court): Tokyo District Court or Nagoya District Court
(iv) a district court located within the jurisdiction of the Hiroshima High Court (excluding Hiroshima District Court): Tokyo District Court or Hiroshima District Court
(v) a district court located within the jurisdiction of the Fukuoka High Court (excluding Fukuoka District Court): Tokyo District Court or Fukuoka District Court
(vi) a district court located within the jurisdiction of the Sendai High Court (excluding Sendai District Court): Tokyo District Court or Sendai District Court
(vii) a district court located within the jurisdiction of the Sapporo High Court (excluding Sapporo District Court): Tokyo District Court or Sapporo District Court
(viii) a district court located within the jurisdiction of the Takamatsu High Court (excluding the Takamatsu District Court): Tokyo District Court or Takamatsu District Court
(2) With respect to the application of the provisions of Article 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure to a case in which several claims are made in one action, including a claim under the provisions of Article 24 of this Act, the term "Article 4 to the preceding Article inclusive (excluding Article 6, paragraph (3))" in Article 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure is deemed to be replaced with "Article 4 to the preceding Article inclusive (excluding Article 6, paragraph (3)), and Article 84-2, paragraph (1) of the Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade."
Article 84-3
The jurisdiction of the first instance over any action involving a crime provided for in Articles 89 to 91 inclusive are to lie in the district courts.
Article 84-4
If a court listed in one of the items under Article 84-2, paragraph (1) has jurisdiction over a case connected with crimes provided in the preceding Article pursuant to the provisions of Article 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act No. 131 of 1948), the court prescribed in the relevant item also has jurisdiction over the case.
Article 85
Any following action and case is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tokyo District Court:
(i) action for the judicial review of an administrative disposition under Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Case Litigation Act in connection with the Cease and Desist Order, etc.
(ii) any case provided for in Article 70-4, paragraph (1), Article 70-5, paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 97 and Article 98.
Article 85-2
The jurisdiction of the first instance over any actions concerning compensation for damages pursuant to the provisions of Article 25 is to lie with the Tokyo District Court.
Article 86
(1) The Tokyo District Court is to conduct a proceeding and make a judicial decision by a panel consisting of three judges for action and case provided for in Article 85, as well as actions provided for in the preceding Article.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the Tokyo District Court, with regard to the action and case preceding paragraph, may make a ruling by the panel of five judges who are to conduct a proceeding and make a judicial decision.
(3) In the case of the preceding paragraph, the panel may not contain three or more assistant judges simultaneously, and no assistant judge may serve as the presiding judge.
Article 87
With regard to the case subject to appeal to the Tokyo High Court against a final judgment made by the Tokyo District Court for the action or suit set forth in Article 85, item (i) or the action or suit pursuant to Article 85-2 or the case subject to appeal to the Tokyo High Court against a ruling made by the Tokyo District Court for the case as set forth in Article 85, item (ii), in the Tokyo High Court, a panel may make a ruling that the panel of five judges is to conduct a proceeding and make a judicial decision on that case.
Article 87-2
If an action to suspend or prevent an infringement pursuant to the provisions of Article 24 has been filed, and an action pursuant to the same Article in connection with the same or similar acts are pending before another court, when the court finds it proper in consideration of the addresses or locations of the parties, addresses of witnesses to be examined, the commonality of issues or evidence, and any other circumstances, the court may transfer, the case in whole or in part to the relevant other court or other courts having jurisdiction over the relevant action, by the court's own authority pursuant to the provisions of Article 84-2, paragraph (1).
Article 88
With respect to action for the judicial review of an administrative disposition under Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Case Litigation Act in connection with the Cease and Desist Order, etc., the provisions of Article 6 of the Act on the Authority of the Minister of Justice over Suits Affecting the Interests of State (Act No. 194 of 1947) do not apply.
