Upon the filing of a petition by a person who alleges that the person's rights have been violated due to disseminating information through specified telecommunications means, the court may, by way of a ruling, order the disclosure related service provider pertaining to the violation of the right to disclose sender identification information as demanded pursuant to the provisions of Article 5, paragraph (1) or (2).

①The court has jurisdiction over a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order if any of the items set forth below is applicable.

②Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, parties may establish, by agreement, the country in which they are permitted to file a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order with the courts.

③The agreement as referred to in the preceding paragraph is not valid unless it is executed by means of a written document.

④If electronic or magnetic records (meaning records used in computer data processing which are created in electronic form, magnetic form, or any other form that is impossible to recognize through the human senses alone) in which the content of the agreement is recorded are used to execute the agreement as referred to in paragraph (2), the agreement is deemed to have been executed by means of a written document, and the provisions of the preceding paragraph apply.

⑤The agreement under paragraph (2) that a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order may be filed only with the courts of a foreign country, may not be invoked if those courts are unable to exercise jurisdiction by law or in fact.

⑥Even when the Japanese courts have jurisdiction over a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order pursuant to the provisions of the preceding respective paragraphs (except when a petition is filed based on an agreement under paragraph (2) that only permits a petition to be filed with the Japanese courts), the court may dismiss the whole or part of a petition without prejudice if it finds that there are special circumstances under which the Japanese courts were to conduct a trial and reach a judicial decision in the action, it would be inequitable to either party or prevent a fair and speedy trial, in consideration of the nature of the case, the degree of burden that the opposite party would have to bear in pursuing the proceedings, the location of evidence, and other circumstances.

⑦Whether the Japanese courts have jurisdiction is determined on the basis of the time at which a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order is filed.

①A petition for a sender identification information disclosure order is under the jurisdiction of a district court which has jurisdiction over a location specified in the respective items below, depending on the categories listed in the respective items below.

②With regard to a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order as to which the Japanese courts would have jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of the preceding Article, if the competent court is not determined pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph or other laws and regulations, then the petition is under the jurisdiction of a district court having jurisdiction over the location prescribed in the Rules of the Supreme Court.

③With regard to a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order, if a court listed in the following items would have jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs, the petition may also be filed with the court specified in the relevant item:

④Notwithstanding the preceding three paragraphs, a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order is under the jurisdiction of a district court specified by the parties by agreement. In that case, the provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) of the preceding Article apply mutatis mutandis.

⑤Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding respective paragraphs, with regard to a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order filed by a person alleging the infringement of the relevant person's patent right, utility model right, layout-design exploitation right for an integrated circuit, or an author's right to a work of computer programming, if a court listed in the following items would have jurisdiction over the petition pursuant to each paragraph, the petition is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court specified in the relevant item:

⑥An immediate appeal to a decision rendered by the court specified in item (ii) of the preceding paragraph in the case of a sender identification information disclosure order (but limited to one relating to infringement of the rights set forth in the paragraph) is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tokyo High Court.

⑦Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, with regard to the case specified in item (i) below relating to a petition by a person to whom, pursuant to the order under Article 15, paragraph (1) (but limited to the portion relating to item (i) of paragraph (1)), information such as names of other related disclosing service providers was provided as the relevant information is specified in (a) of item (i), if the case specified in item (ii) below relating to the petition by the person to whom the information was provided is pending, then the former case is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court at which the latter case is pending.

①When a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order is filed with a court, the court must deliver to the opposite party a copy of the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order unless the petition is unlawful or unless the relevant petition is clearly groundless.

②The provisions of Article 43, paragraphs (4) through (6) of the Non-Contentious Case Procedures Act (Act No. 51 of 2011) apply mutatis mutandis to a case where a copy of the petition for a sender identification information disclosure order may not be delivered (including if expenses required for the delivery of a copy of the relevant petition are not prepaid).

③Before rendering a decision on a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order, the court must hear the parties' statements; provided that, this does not apply when the court renders a decision to dismiss the petition, finding that it is unlawful or clearly groundless.

①The parties to a case and any third party that makes a prima facie showing of interest in the case may file a request with the court clerk to inspect or copy the case record, to issue an authenticated copy, transcript, or extract of the case record, or to issue a certificate of the particulars of the case of the sender identification information disclosure order.

②The provisions of the preceding paragraph do not apply with respect to case records of the case of a sender identification information disclosure order that are being prepared in the form of audiotapes or videotapes (including any other matters that have been recorded by means equivalent thereto). Nevertheless, the relevant parties or a third party that makes a prima facie showing of interest may file a request with the court clerk for a reproduction of these matters.

③The request for inspection, copying and reproduction of records of a case of a sender identification information disclosure order pursuant to the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs may not be filed if these actions would be detrimental to the preservation of the case record or the performance of the court duties.

①A petition for a sender identification information disclosure order may be withdrawn in whole or in part before a decision on the petition becomes final and binding; provided that, after any of the following decisions is made, withdrawal of the petition is invalid without the consent of the opposite party:

②In the case that a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order is withdrawn, if the opposite party's consent is required for the withdrawal of the petition pursuant to the provisions of the proviso to the preceding paragraph, the court must notify the opposite party of the withdrawal of the petition; provided that, this does not apply if the petition is withdrawn orally on the date for proceedings of the case of the sender identification information disclosure order and if the opposite party appears on the required date.

③If the opposite party does not state an objection within two weeks from the day on which that party receives a notice pursuant to the provisions in the main text of the preceding paragraph, the opposite party is deemed to have consented to the withdrawal of the petition under the formal notice. The same applies in the case prescribed in the proviso to the relevant paragraph if the opposite party does not state an objection within two weeks from the day on which the petition is withdrawn.

①A party who is dissatisfied with a decision on a petition for a sender identification information disclosure order (except for a decision to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition is unlawful) may file an action to oppose the decision within an inalterable time frame of one month from the day on which the notice of the decision is received.

②An action prescribed in the preceding paragraph is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court which made the decision prescribed in the paragraph.

③In a judgment on the action prescribed in paragraph (1), the court approves, modifies or withdraws the decision prescribed in the paragraph except if the action is dismissed on the ground that the action is unlawful.

④A judgment that approves or modifies the order prescribed in paragraph (1) and that orders the disclosure of sender identification information has the same effect in terms of compulsory execution as a judgment that orders payment.

⑤If an action prescribed in paragraph (1) is not filed within the time frame prescribed in that paragraph or is dismissed, the decision prescribed in that paragraph with regard to the action has the same effect as the final and binding judgment.

⑥In applying the provisions of Article 59, paragraph (1) of the Non-Contentious Case Procedures Act to the case if the court makes the decision prescribed in paragraph (1), the phrase "an immediate appeal may be filed" in Article 59, paragraph (1), item (ii) of the Act is read as "an action of opposition may be filed".

①If the court at which a case of a sender identification information disclosure order on the merits is pending recognizes the necessity in order to prevent a situation which could lead to the inability to identify the sender of the violating information pertaining to the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order, then upon petition by the person who filed the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner" in this paragraph), the court may issue a ruling ordering the disclosure related service provider as the opposite party in the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order to take the following actions:

③If either of the following items becomes applicable, the information provision order (if the person to whom information such as names of other disclosure related service providers has been provided with regard to two or more other disclosure related service providers pursuant to the information provision order falls under the category of item (ii) because the relevant person does not give a notice prescribed in paragraph (1), item (ii) to certain other disclosure related service providers, then only the portion of the information provision order pertaining to those other disclosure related service providers) is no longer effective.

④A petition for an information provision order may be withdrawn in whole or in part even after the information provision order is given.

⑤The disclosure related service provider against whom an information provision order has been issued, may file an immediate appeal against the information provision order.

①If the court at which a case of a sender identification information disclosure order on the merits is pending, recognizes the necessity in order to prevent a situation which could lead to the inability to identify the sender of violating information pertaining to the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order, then upon petition by the person who filed the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order, the court may issue a ruling ordering that the disclosure related service provider as the opposite party against whom the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order was filed may not delete the sender identification information (limited to that relating to the petition for the sender identification information disclosure order) possessed by the disclosure related service provider until the relevant case of the sender identification information disclosure order ends (or if an action prescribed in Article 14, paragraph (1) is instituted against a decision prescribed in the paragraph for that case of a sender identification information disclosure order, until the lawsuit ends).

②A petition for the order issued pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph (hereinafter referred to in this Article as a "deletion prohibitory order") may be withdrawn in whole or in part even after the deletion prohibitory order is issued.

③The disclosure related service provider against whom a deletion prohibitory order has been issued may file an immediate appeal against the deletion prohibitory order.

With regard to petitions and other statements in court proceedings relating to a case of a sender identification information disclosure order, the provisions of Part I, Chapter VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 109 of 1996) (excluding Article 133-2, paragraphs (5) and (6) and Article 133-3, paragraph (2)) apply mutatis mutandis. In this case, the phrase "party" in Article 133, paragraph (1) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "party or interested party intervenor (meaning an interested party intervenor prescribed in Article 21, paragraph (5) of the Non-Contentious Case Procedures Act (Act No. 51 of 2011); the same applies in Article 133-4, paragraphs (1), (2) and (7))"; the phrase "case records, etc. (meaning case records or the records of a case pertaining to a petition for a disposition under Article 132-4, paragraph (1)" in paragraph (3) of that Article is deemed to be replaced with "case of a sender identification information disclosure order (meaning a case of a sender identification information disclosure order prescribed in Article 2, item (xiii) of the Act on Measures against Infringement of Rights, etc. Arising from the Distribution of Information through specified telecommunications", and the phrase "), within" in that paragraph with "), within the record of the case"; the phrase "inspection of case records, etc. (meaning inspection of case records, inspection of non-electronic evidence collection disposition records, or inspection of electronic or magnetic evidence collection disposition records; hereinafter the same applies in this Chapter) with regard to" in that paragraph is deemed to be replaced with "inspection or copying, or issuance of a transcript or extract, of"; the phrase "inspection of case records, etc. pertaining to" in Article 133-2, paragraph (1) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "inspection or copying, or issuance of a transcript or extract, of"; the phrase "in the case records, etc." in paragraph (2) of that Article is deemed to be replaced with "in the case records of the case of a sender identification information disclosure order"; the phrase "inspection of case records, etc. pertaining to" in that paragraph and paragraph (3) of that Article is deemed to be replaced with "inspection or copying, issuance of an authenticated copy, transcript or extract, or reproduction, of"; the phrase "written or recorded document or electronic or magnetic record" in Article 133-3, paragraph (1) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "written document", the phrase "the document or electronic or magnetic record" with "the document", and the phrase "or electronic or magnetic record, or other similar document or electronic or magnetic record, inspection of case records, etc. pertaining to" with "or other similar document, inspection or copying, or issuance of a transcript or extract, of"; the phrase "person, case records, etc." in Article 133-4, paragraph (1) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "party or interested party intervenor, or a third party who has made a prima facie showing of interest, case records of the case of a sender identification information disclosure order"; the phrase "party" in paragraph (2) of that Article is deemed to be replaced with "party or interested party intervenor", the phrase "where case records, etc. are kept" with "where case records of the case of a sender identification information disclosure order are kept", and the phrase "inspection of case records, etc." with "inspection or copying, issuance of an authenticated copy, transcript or extract, or reproduction"; and the phrase "party" in paragraph (7) of that Article is deemed to be replaced with "party or interested party intervenor".

The proviso to Article 22, paragraph (1) and the provisions of Articles 27, 40 and 42-2 of the Non-Contentious Case Procedures Act do not apply to court proceedings relating to a case of a sender identification information disclosure order.

Beyond what is provided for in this Act, necessary particulars in connection with court proceedings relating to a case of a sender identification information disclosure order are prescribed by the Rules of the Supreme Court.