Tokyo District Court, Reiwa 6 (Wa) 70106 <Kokubu>
Article information
Article type: Case note
Categories: Patents / Other Japanese law
Topics: Licensing
First published on this website: 2026-10-07
Display and classification checked: 2026-10-07
Tokyo District Court, Reiwa 6 (Wa) 70106 <Kokubu>
* An obligation to grant a non-exclusive license under another person's patent was not performed.
⇒ Termination was effective.
(Excerpt from the judgment, translated)
Even where someone grants another person a non-exclusive license without the patent owner's consent, it is possible to obtain the patent owner's authorization after concluding the contract. Thus, even if someone without authority to grant a non-exclusive license grants one to a third party, there is no need immediately to deny the contract's validity between the contracting parties.
However, such a license agreement concerns another person's rights. A person who grants a non-exclusive license despite lacking authority to do so must therefore, under Articles 559 and 561 of the Civil Code, acquire that authority for the non-exclusive licensee.
In this case, ... the agreement included the plaintiff's promise to grant the defendant non-exclusive licenses under the patents at issue. ... Patent 1 is found to be jointly owned by 国土防災技術株式会社 and 日本ソフケン, while Patent 3 is jointly owned by those two companies and 日本ミクニヤ株式会社. Accordingly, as an obligation under the agreement, the plaintiff owed the defendant a duty to obtain from those co-owners the authority to grant non-exclusive licenses for the defendant. ...
However, ... although the plaintiff had been granted an exclusive license under Patent 2 by its sole owner, 日本ソフケン, the entire import of the oral argument shows that, for Patents 1 and 3, the plaintiff had not obtained the co-owners' authorization to establish non-exclusive licenses for the defendant. The plaintiff therefore failed to perform that obligation. ...
... The requirements for termination following a demand for performance—the plaintiff's nonperformance of its contractual obligation, the defendant's demand for performance within a reasonable period, failure to perform within that period, and a declaration of termination—are satisfied (main clause of Article 541 of the Civil Code). As a result of termination of the agreement, the defendant has no obligation to pay the license fees. ...
https://lnkd.in/gbFBYPUm
Original article (2025-11-28):
https://lnkd.in/g6ayXYz5
Update history
Content changes and display maintenance are recorded separately.
2026-10-07: First published from the original LinkedIn post; categories, article information, and consultation navigation added.
