[Article / IP Generally] Patent attorneys as judicial research officials (Kazumune Takamura and Yuji Iwanaga, Patent, November 2025)
Updated: 3 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Publication review
Categories: Patents / Other Japanese law
Main topics: Litigation procedure / Proof of infringement
First published on this website: October 1, 2026
Display and classification checked: October 1, 2026 (not a revalidation of the legal analysis)
[Article / IP Generally] Patent attorneys as judicial research officials (Kazumune Takamura and Yuji Iwanaga, Patent, November 2025)
1. Legal position of judicial research officials
Under Courts Act Article 57 and Code of Civil Procedure Article 92-8, they may ask parties questions on factual and legal matters and directly question them during examination of evidence.
Most have experience as JPO trial examiners, but patent-attorney positions comprise one at the IP High Court (mechanical field) and one at the Tokyo District Court (chemical field). The term is three years.
2. Specific duties
① Preliminary research: Submit materials organizing technical terminology and the reasoning of the trial decision to the judges, based on the plaintiff's arguments.
② Attend hearings.
③ Prepare research reports.
3. Points for advancing litigation effectively from a research official's perspective
① Actions to revoke trial decisions (IP High Court)
Opportunities for argument and proof are limited. All grounds for revocation and supporting evidence must be assembled in the plaintiff's first preparatory brief.
Target errors in the trial decision's reasoning that affect the outcome; avoid excessive development of an independent line of reasoning.
② Patent infringement litigation (district courts)
Thorough scrutiny before filing suit.
Reliability of experimental proof: Analysis of accused products and reproduction experiments should preferably be conducted by highly reliable external institutions.
Answering questions: Questions from judges and research officials at technical presentations often concern core issues determining the judgment's outcome, so their intent must be accurately understood and answered.
Original article: https://lnkd.in/gg8m8nwn
Related articles
Updates and corrections
Substantive corrections and additions are recorded separately from classification, related links and display changes.
October 1, 2026: First publication of the author's original LinkedIn text on this website. Article type, categories, topic tags, sources and consultation navigation added.
2026-10-01 | Display maintenance: added case references stated in the original or language-alternate metadata; not a revalidation of legal analysis.
2026-10-01 | Name notation: replaced verified Japanese-script personal names with Roman-letter forms in this English article and its navigation. Legal analysis and original publication date unchanged.
Comments