IP High Court, 2024 (Ra) 10003 — Restricting Access to Settlement Terms and Litigation Records
Updated: 2 days ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Categories: Patents
Topics: Litigation procedure, Trade secrets
First published on this website: 2026-10-16
Display and classification checked: 2026-10-17
Case information: 2024 (Ra) 10003
IP High Court, 2024 (Ra) 10003
Immediate appeal against a decision dismissing an application to restrict inspection and similar access.
A settlement including a nondisclosure clause was reached in patent infringement litigation.
⇒ The defendant applied to restrict inspection of the settlement terms and portions of the preparatory briefs and documentary evidence.
⇒ The IP High Court permitted the restriction, holding that the “settlement terms + preparatory briefs and documentary evidence,” considered as a whole, constituted trade secrets.
(The first-instance decision had declined to restrict inspection of some portions of the preparatory briefs and documentary evidence.)
(Excerpt from the decision: the section on the “relationship with the principle of open justice”)
… The plaintiff in the underlying action emphasizes in its opinion that Article 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure derives from the principle of open justice under Article 82 of the Constitution. The court therefore sets out its view on this point.
First, what Article 82(1) of the Constitution requires to be public are the “trials” and “judgments” of courts. “Trials” refers to oral argument in civil proceedings and trial proceedings in criminal cases; it does not automatically include the preparatory proceedings in which this settlement took place. It goes without saying that a settlement in litigation, unlike a “judgment,” is not something pronounced in open court.
In civil litigation, the principle of party disposition is adopted as a reflection of private autonomy, leaving the legal relationship constituting the subject matter of the action to the parties, and respect for the parties’ autonomous resolution is required. In the underlying action here, the plaintiff and the defendant (the appellant) chose final resolution through the nonpublic procedure of a settlement in litigation rather than through a judgment procedure subject to the requirement of publicity. They also agreed to a nondisclosure clause, seeking to prevent the release or leakage of information relating to the settlement terms. If, notwithstanding this, third parties could inspect the settlement terms through the procedure under Article 91(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, that would clearly produce a result contrary to the intentions and expectations of the parties who decided on such a settlement. In such a case, an order restricting inspection and similar access to all of the settlement terms accords with the principle of party disposition, a basic principle of civil litigation, and the requirement to respect the parties’ autonomous resolution, and in no way conflicts with the principle of open justice.
Originally published: 2025-03-24
Original Japanese post: https://ameblo.jp/hideki-takaishi/entry-12891140309.html
Update history
This history records actual publication, display, and classification changes made on this website.
2026-10-16: The AMEBLO source was first published on this website.
2026-10-17: Added classification, topic tags, article information, translation navigation, related articles, consultation guidance, and SEO. The original article text was not changed.
Comments