FACTS

In October 1984, Japanese corporation A concluded a technical assistance contract with United States corporation B, of which X is the representative and shareholder, and based on this contract, company A received information such as engineering design related to copper foil manufacturing from company B.

In October 1985, Company C, a copper foil manufacturing company where X used to work as an employee, filed a lawsuit with the Federal District Court in Ohio, United States, on the grounds of unfair competition, theft of trade secrets and unjust enrichment, alleging that the technical information provided to Company A by Company B is the know-how of Company C, the provision of the information violates the confidentiality obligation under the employment contract between X and Company C, and Company A acquired the information while recognising the fact.

In response, Company A (Claimant) filed a lawsuit against Company C (Defendant) in Japan to confirm that it has no liability for damages in tort and unjust enrichment, and Company C has no right to claim an injunction. Prior to the proceedings on merits, Company C presented a petition for a dismissal on the grounds of international duplicate litigations, but the judge admitted its jurisdiction in its interim judgment. Thereafter, the judge tried the case on merit.

FINDINGS

The judge held:

The laws of Japan where the material part of the torts occurred should be the governing law.

"In consideration of this, what the defendant considers to be the claimant's infringement is the conclusion of a technical assistance contract between the claimant and DTG [Company B] and the acquisition of information based on this, both of which occurred in Tokyo. Since there is no dispute between the parties that the liaison and negotiations for concluding the contract and the technical meeting between the claimant and Company B were held in Tokyo around mid-November 1984, it means that an extremely material part of the torts occurred in Japan. Therefore, it can be said that the fact that caused the unjust enrichment or the tort occurred in Japan, so the laws of Japan should become the governing law."

"In this regard, given the defendant's allegations, X acted in the United States, including creating technical drawings, and Company D, which is alleged to be in a conspiracy relationship with the claimant, also contacted X as a preparatory act for infringement of know-how in the United States. However, these acts are inferior to the acts mentioned earlier in terms of the gravity as torts, when seeing the sequence of the acts of infringement alleged by the defendant."

"Therefore, if either the laws of Japan or the laws of the United States (Ohio) must be the governing law, it is appropriate that the laws of Japan, where the main tortious acts were conducted, becomes the governing law."

• Indirect Jurisdiction and Tort (Supreme Court, 1st Petty Bench, 24 April 2014)

• International Parallel Litigation (Tokyo District Court, 21 October 2013)

• Enforcement of a Chinese Arbitral Award in Japan (Osaka District Court, 25 March 2011)

• Jurisdiction in Patent Infringement (Intellectual Property High Court, 15 September 2010)

• Failure in Service in a Foreign State and Service by Publication (Fukuoka High Court, Naha Branch, 29 May 2009)

• Parallel Import and Patent (Supreme Court, 3rd Petty Bench, 1 July 1997)

• Governing Law in a Contract (Tokyo District Court, 26 February 1997)

• Governing Law in Restitution and Benevolent Intervention (Tokyo District Court, 24 September 1991)

• Payment in a Foreign Currency (Supreme Court, 3rd Petty Bench, 15 July 1975)

• Governing Law in Assignment of Claims (Tokyo District Court, 11 July 1967)