Decision and Details
Tokyo District CourtConclusion of the damages claim litigation against the Company (abandonment of claims)
The plaintiff abandoned its claims. The Company asserted that kintone did not satisfy the constituent requirements of the patented invention, that prior user rights existed, and that the patent had multiple grounds for invalidity, including lack of novelty and lack of inventive step.
The conclusion of this litigation will have no impact on the Company's financial results or future business operations.
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Matter Covered | Conclusion of the damages claim litigation against the Company (abandonment of claims) |
| Decision-Making Body | Tokyo District Court |
| Decision Date | 20 October 2026 |
| Implementation Date | 20 October 2026 (litigation concluded, actual) |
| Amount | Amount claimed: ¥100 million (an expressly limited partial claim of ¥3.3 billion) and delay damages. Amount paid by Cybozu, Inc. to the plaintiff: None |
| Impact on Business Performance | The conclusion of this litigation will have no impact on the Company's financial results or future business operations. |
| Reason | The plaintiff abandoned its claims. The Company asserted that kintone did not satisfy the constituent requirements of the patented invention, that prior user rights existed, and that the patent had multiple grounds for invalidity, including lack of novelty and lack of inventive step. |
| Related previous disclosures | Notice Regarding Filing of Litigation Against the Company dated 18 July 2025 |
Items this document does not state (4)
These are items the company does not state in this document. We do not leave them blank, nor fill them in from other sources or by inference.
The reasons the company gives
The company's own explanation, not something inferred from the numbers.The litigation concluded when the plaintiff abandoned its claims. The Company addressed the matter through court proceedings, asserting that its products did not satisfy the constituent requirements of the patent, that prior user rights existed, and that the patent was invalid on multiple grounds, including lack of novelty and lack of inventive step.