Patent Case Law and Intellectual Property Practice Blog

Notifying YouTube of copyright infringement, invasion of privacy and defamation through its notification forms regarding uploaded videos was held not to constitute a tort interfering with expressive activity. 1. Google carefully reviews takedown requests, sometimes requesting additional information or rejecting requests. Videos are therefore not removed unconditionally.

① The Ricoh case and how “compulsory mediation” should operate Although the first-instance judgment also dismissed damages entirely, as long as the implementer actually enjoys the patented invention's benefits, a solution denying an injunction but allowing payment equivalent to a reasonable licence fee (royalty)—following the Supreme Court's 1968 judgment—is desirable from the perspectives of legal consistency and equity.

Explore existing articles on AI and intellectual property, including rights relating to voice and IP strategy in the AI era.

Explore articles on damages, injunctions and proof of infringement. The relevant considerations differ across legal fields and cases; consult the individual articles and their sources.

The Supreme Court did not regard students’ performances as being under the music school’s control, for these reasons: (1) Purpose: Students seek to “acquire and improve performance skills”; playing assigned pieces is merely a “means” to that end. (2) Autonomy: Students play of their own volition; teachers’ instruction merely “assists” them (it is not compulsion).

(1) Reproduction and public-transmission rights (quotation defense) The purpose of attaching images to critical tweets was criticism. Quoting Y’s illustrations to identify the subject of criticism was held to be within the extent justified by the quotation’s purpose and therefore a lawful quotation under Copyright Act Article 32(1).

(Presiding Judge Nakajima) [Issue 1] No infringement of the right of public transmission The subtitle translator undertook the translation work on an "all rights clear" basis.

1. Personality rights and “voiceprint rights” Under current law, portrait rights are recognized on the basis of the right to pursue happiness under Article 13 of the Constitution. 2. Publicity rights

(Presiding Judge Matsuami) The plaintiff, a former professor at Tokushima University, alleged that the defendant's program was the plaintiff's copyrighted work or a jointly owned copyrighted work. ⇒ The very existence of the "plaintiff's program" was not established. The plaintiff lost.

(Presiding Judge Nakajima) *Quotation defense under Article 32(1) of the Copyright Act established. (Excerpt from the judgment — translated)