An International Guide to
Patent Case Management for Judges

Full guide

Download full guide Download current chapter
WIPO Translate
Google Translate

8.9.2 Jurisdiction Territorial jurisdiction

Unlike civil patent cases, there is no provision on territorial jurisdiction specifically carved out for criminal patent cases. Thus, like in any criminal case, the court having jurisdiction over the place of the offense, the place of domicile or residence of the defendant, or the place where the defendant is presently located has territorial jurisdiction over the criminal patent case.181 Subject matter jurisdiction

For civil cases, the judicial power of a district court is exercised by a single judge, in principle, while the cases defined in Article 32(1) of the Court Organization Act may exceptionally be judged by a panel of the district court (Articles 7(4)–(5) and 32(1) of the Court Organization Act). Article 32(1)(iii) of the Court Organization Act dictates that, except for certain types of cases, a panel should preside over cases that may result in “capital punishment, imprisonment with or without labor for an indefinite term or for not less than one year in the short term.” However, such punishments are not applicable to the patent crimes defined in Chapter XII of the Patent Act. Therefore, all criminal patent cases are handled by a single-judge bench. Jurisdiction by court level

As stated above, criminal patent cases go to single judges in district courts or their branches and are appealed to panels of district courts (Article 32(2) of the Court Organization Act). Appeals thereof are heard by the Supreme Court.