In a notable break from past procedures, writes Yoshinori Shimizu, the court has published a framework for the handling of disputes that places an emphasis on speed, structure and settlement.

On 20 January 2026, the Intellectual Property Divisions of the Tokyo District Court released new Handling Guidelines for Litigation on Infringement of Patent Rights Based on SEPs

(標準必須特許（SEP）に基づく特許権侵害訴訟の審理要領 | 東京地方裁判所/東京簡裁以外の都内簡易裁判所, Japanese only). This represents a notable procedural development in Japan’s treatment of SEP disputes.

The guidelines are widely understood to be aimed at improving predictability in such cases and making Japan a more practical and accessible forum for resolving global SEP issues.

Key operational features

There are four principal features in the guidelines:

• Settlement encouraged from the first hearing: From the outset, the court will actively explore settlement, seeking to avoid the kind of early‑stage drift that often prolongs SEP cases.

• Two rounds of briefs on infringement and invalidity: The court will set a strict schedule and generally limit the parties to two exchanges each on issues relating to infringement and invalidity, thus curbing delaying tactics and promoting efficiency.

• ‘Rate‑last’ modular settlement drafting: Shortly after the first hearing, the parties are expected to negotiate and finalise all non‑rate terms of a potential licence agreement. If settlement is achieved, the global FRAND royalty rate will be added later as the final remaining issue and appended to the settlement record, allowing the negotiation to progress even if the rate remains contested.

• Defendants’ obligation to provide substantive counteranalysis and evidence: In addition to the plaintiff’s obligation to present a global FRAND royalty offer that includes a clear and specific basis for its calculation, the guidelines impose a clear duty on defendants to:

  • present specific admissions, denials and rebuttals to the plaintiff’s royalty calculations;

  • set out their own basis for determining a global FRAND rate; and

  • submit evidence such as sales volumes and revenues for the accused products.

This requirement is designed to help reduce the usual imbalance of information in SEP disputes – where implementers typically hold essential data on sales volumes and revenues – and may prompt implementers, which at times have been reluctant to disclose information early, to substantiate their positions sooner.

Relationship with government guidance

The Tokyo District Court guidelines complement pre‑litigation materials issued by different parts of the Japanese government:

• Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) – Good-Faith Negotiation Guidelines: METI’s guidelines set non‑binding norms for good‑faith negotiation conduct for both SEP holders and implementers. They aim to enhance transparency and predictability, though they do not predetermine judicial conclusions. http://good-faith-negotiation-guidelines-for-SEPlicenses-en.pdf

• Japan Patent Office – Guide to Licensing Negotiations Involving SEPs: This provides an objective summary of issues and practices based on domestic and foreign case law, administrative decisions and licensing practice. https://www.jpo.go.jp/e/system/laws/rule/guideline/patent/document/rev-seps-tebiki/guide-seps-en.pdf

Together, these materials outline how negotiation conduct should be viewed; the Tokyo District Court’s new guidelines then explain how that assessment will be carried out in court.

Elements of the new guidelines – including mandatory disclosures, compressed schedules and the ‘rate‑last’ structure – may operate favourably for rights holders by curbing delay tactics and compelling implementers to substantiate their positions early on. This emphasis on negotiation conduct is not merely theoretical: in the groundbreaking Pantech v Google (Pixel 7) case, the Tokyo District Court placed significant weight on the defendant’s lack of cooperation – including its refusal to disclose key sales data during court‑supervised settlement discussions – when assessing willingness.

Potential gamechanger, but …

The new framework has the potential to become a gamechanger in Japan’s SEP landscape. However, its true impact will depend not on the text of the guidelines alone, but on how consistently and assertively the courts apply them in real cases.

A crucial consideration will be litigation volume. For the guidelines to develop into a well‑defined and influential procedural model, a substantial flow of cases may be needed. But whether such an increase occurs may itself depend on stakeholders gaining confidence through visible, effective judicial operation of the framework.

This creates a ‘chicken and egg’ dynamic:

• Robust implementation may encourage more SEP filings; but

• A meaningful rise in filings may be necessary for the framework to mature and deliver the predictability that practitioners seek.

How this interplay evolves will ultimately determine whether Japan can solidify its role as a central and reliable forum for global SEP disputes.

Yoshinori Shimizu is managing director of Sisvel’s Japanese office