1. Details of the incident

Tokyo District Court, Civil Division 38, Section B1

Case number: Reiwa 7 (Gyo-U) No. 20, No. 32

Case name: Status confirmation, etc. request case

2. Details of the third oral argument

Date: October 31, 2025

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom No. 803

3. Details of the procedure

Plaintiff: Submitted Application for Additional Amendment of Complaint (2), Plaintiffs' Second Preparatory Document, Plaintiffs' Third Preparatory Document Statement, Exhibits A-22 to A-38.

Defendant: Preparation (2) Statement. Submitted Evidence B No. 18 to Exhibit B No. 26.

4. Details of the communication on the deadline

Judge: Does the plaintiff wish to proceed to the judgment date before the revised law comes into effect?

Our side: We would like the oral arguments to be concluded at least.

Judge: A submission for evidence has been submitted, so I would like to hear the defendant's opinion as soon as possible.

Defendant: Understood.

Judge: I would like you to admit or deny/refute the Motion for Additional Amendment of the Complaint (2) and the Third Brief. How long will this take?

Defendant: It will take some time because we need to verify the facts.

Judge: In order to proceed before the revised law comes into effect, I would like you to submit your preparatory documents as soon as possible.

Defendant: Regarding Article 1 of the revised law, we are currently accepting public comments on government and ministerial ordinances, but this has not yet concluded. Furthermore, while Article 1 is expected to come into effect on May 1, 2026, the regulations on retail sales are related to Article 2, and therefore will not come into effect on May 1, 2026. Regarding Article 2 of the revised law, it is expected to come into effect within two years, so it is scheduled to come into effect by May 21, 2027.

Our side: Are there plans for public comments regarding Article 2 as well?

Defendant: As this is a necessary procedure for enforcement, it is currently planned to be implemented. After implementation, it will come into effect.

Our side: In the past, there have been cases where amendments were enacted without public comment. Can I assume that this will definitely be implemented?

Defendant: Not holding a public comment period is permitted in exceptional cases, such as when there is an emergency. At this point, we plan to hold one.

Our side: Does your agency believe that the requirements for not requiring public comment are not met?

Defendant: Currently, we plan to implement it.

Judge: If so, is there any need to hurry?

Our side: Our intention to proceed as quickly as possible remains unchanged, considering that the matter may go to the high court.

Judge: I understand.

Our side: Are there any plans for the defendant to testify?

Defendant: Not currently planned.

5. Next hearing date

Tuesday, December 23, 2020 4:00 p.m.

6. Document submission deadline

Defendant: Tuesday, December 16, 2020

1. Details of the incident

Tokyo District Court, Civil Division 38, Section B1

Case number: Reiwa 7 (Gyo-U) No. 20, No. 32

Case name Case for requesting status confirmation, etc.

2. Details of the first oral argument

Date: July 30, 2025

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom No. 803

3. Details of the procedure

Plaintiff: Submitted application for additional amendment of the complaint, plaintiffs' first preparatory document statement, and Exhibits A-13 to A-21.

Defendant: Preparation (1) Statement. Submitted Evidence B No. 10 to Exhibit B No. 17.

4. Details of the communication on the deadline

The court responded to the plaintiffs that the Ikebukuro Public Health Center's on-site inspection of the plaintiff Nagasawa Pharmaceutical (Ikebukuro Self-Medication) was to confirm whether the company had violated the advertising restrictions set out in the pharmacy drug notification, and that the inspection also included that.

Furthermore, the court pointed out that the plaintiffs' arguments in their first preparatory brief were primarily about the definition of pharmacy drugs, and asked whether they planned to present any other arguments or evidence. In response, the plaintiffs responded that they had only refuted the defendants' arguments to the extent necessary, and that they would consider whether to present further arguments or evidence depending on the defendants' future arguments.

Subsequently, the defendant's attorney asked us to confirm whether the defendant's summary of the plaintiffs' claims, which was summarized in the defendant's preparatory brief (1), was correct, and we responded that we would summarize it in the preparatory brief approximately one week after the hearing.

The next step was for the defendant to submit a brief in rebuttal to the plaintiffs' first brief, and the defendant's attorney requested that the submission date be October 3rd. In response, plaintiffs' attorney Nishiura pointed out that the plaintiffs' first brief had been submitted on July 14th, and that two and a half months from the date of submission was too long, and requested that the submission be made in mid-September in order to expedite the trial. However, the defendant's attorney refused, and so the deadline for the defendant's submission of the rebuttal was set for October 3rd, as requested by the defendant's attorney.

On the other hand, because it was necessary to proceed with the trial as quickly as possible, the plaintiffs decided to prepare a written rebuttal before the next hearing, and the deadline for submission was set at October 24, three weeks after the defendant's written submission.The next hearing date was then set and the trial concluded.

5. Next hearing date

October 31, 2025, 11:00 AM

6. Document submission deadline

Defendant: October 3, 2020

Plaintiffs: August 6, 2025 (argument summary), October 24, 2025 (rebuttal to defendant's brief submitted on October 3)

1. Details of the incident

Tokyo District Court, Civil Division 38, Section B1

Case number: Reiwa 7 (Gyo-U) No. 20, No. 32

Case name: Status confirmation, etc. request case

2. Details of the first oral argument

Date: May 16, 2025

Venue: Tokyo District Court, Courtroom No. 803

3. Details of the procedure

Plaintiff: Complaint, Statement of Motion to Amend Complaint, Exhibits A-1 to A-12 submitted. Statements of opinion by Mr. Nagasawa, Representative Director of Plaintiff Nagasawa Pharmaceuticals, Mr. Yamashita, Representative Director of Plaintiff Mayumi Pharmacy, and Attorney Nishiura.

Defendant: Statement of answer. Exhibits B-1 to B-9 submitted.

4. Details of the communication on the deadline

When the court asked the defendant when it would be able to submit its substantive response, the defendant's attorney replied that it would be July 11, 2025, in order to make a statement including an outline of the revised Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Act. Therefore, taking into consideration that it has already been four months since the lawsuit was filed and the revised Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Act has been enacted, it is necessary to move the hearing of this case forward as soon as possible, but on the other hand, the revised Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Act has no relation to the facts underlying the claim in this case, so there is no need to make a statement, the court requested that the deadline for submitting the written statement be brought forward. The defendant's attorney promised to submit the statement by June 30.

In order to expedite the proceedings, it was decided that the plaintiff would also prepare a written rebuttal before the next hearing, and the deadline for such submission was set at July 14, two weeks after the defendant's submission of the written rebuttal. The next hearing date was then decided and the proceedings concluded.

5. Next hearing date

July 30, 2025, 10:30 AM

6. Document submission deadline

Defendant: June 30, 2020

Plaintiff: July 14, 2020