Publisher：YUHIKAKU PUBLISHING CO.,LTD.  

researchmap

This paper is a precedent commentary on the so-called “Ricoh Toner Cartridge Case.” At the initial hearing it was decided that restrictions on recycling are considered trade interference under the Antimonopoly Act, and this also received attention from the appeals court since this meant that the exercise of patent rights constituted the inappropriate use of rights.
The defendant had produced and sold recycled toner cartridges originally manufactured by the plaintiff. During the recycling process, the defendants replaced the IC chip with a new one. This was because the plaintiff’s IC chip which detects the amount of toner that is remaining could not be reset and reused. The plaintiff alleged patent infringement with respect to the replacement of the IC chip. In response to the initial hearing, the appellate court denied that this was a violation of the Antimonopoly Act and did not recognize this as an inappropriate use of rights.
Why did the judgements of the initial hearing and the appellate court differ? The reason for this would appear to be in the criteria for determining the inappropriate use of rights and the application of facts to the law. When there is a suspected violation of the Antimonopoly Act in the exercise of intellectual property rights, this has typically been considered an issue under Article 21 of the Antimonopoly Act. It is commonly believed that the Antimonopoly Act applies when there is a deviation from the purposes of the intellectual property system, and in such cases consideration is given to the extent to which competition is restricted in the market. Behind this is the understanding that both the Intellectual Property Act and Antimonopoly Act have the common objective of promoting competition with respect to intellectual property. There is also the view that there is no need to note the common purpose of both laws. However, when this view is extended, the issue is whether the enforcement of the rights provided by the intellectual property system exceeds mere protection. It is only when the protection at issue has a common purpose with the Antimonopoly Act that the violation of the Antimonopoly Act can be decisive in determining the inappropriate use of rights. On this point, the appellate court took the former position, while the court in the initial hearing was sympathetic to the latter position.
From the perspective of the appellate court, the violation of the Antimonopoly Act was considered decisive. Looking at the facts of this case in which the question concerned the restriction of competition with respect to consumables, the deciding factor may have been the need for the products to be genuine. In this regard, the findings of the initial hearing and the appellate court differed as to whether patent infringement can be avoided when recycling, and the differences in recognition can be said to be one reason for this variance between the two courts.

researchmap

In the second session of the 117th Congress (2022-2023), there were significant changes in supply chain security. The supply chain security community made progress in revising NIST SP 800-171, a fundamental document for contractors in the field of supply chain security. They also focused on various themes, including the Software Bill of Materials (SBOM), zero-trust, and the notification scheme in the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA). These initiatives were responses to major security incidents, such as the Colonial Pipeline breach and the Log4j vulnerability incident. Additionally, security enhancements against China, such as the CHIPS Act, along with restrictions on TikTok, saw advancements. However, there were significant policy failures in the area of Systemically Important Critical Infrastructure (SICI).

researchmap

This paper examines the so-called "Japanese version of the security clearance (suitability assessment) system". This system was enacted in May 2024 as the "Act on the Protection and Utilization of Critical Economic and Security Information". This law designates information that may affect security as "important economic and security information" and restricts the handling of such information to those who have no risk of leakage. The reason it is called "security clearance" is because the latter certification is based on a proper evaluation of employees. This system is a milestone because it expands the scope of the Protection of Specified Secrets Act to civilian officials and civilians, and includes a proper evaluation system that was not included in the Economic Security Promotion Act. It is also said that this system will make it easier for Japanese companies to participate in government procurement in Europe and the U.S. In this sense, the system also has a supply chain security aspect. However, there are issues to be addressed regarding the appropriateness of the operation of the system, such as how to minimize the designation of economic and security information subject to the system in relation to the public's right to know, and how to ensure the privacy rights of those subject to due diligence. This paper summarizes the contents and issues based on the discussions on this system.

researchmap

Publishing type：Research paper, summary (national, other academic conference)  

researchmap

Publishing type：Research paper, summary (national, other academic conference)   Publisher：THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRONICS, INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION ENGINEERS  

researchmap

Event date： 2024.6 - 2024.7

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Luiss Guido Carli University, Rome, Italy   Country：Italy  

researchmap

Event date： 2024.3

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (nominated)  

researchmap

Event date： 2022.12

Event date： 2022.11

Event date： 2022.8