This chapter introduces the statutory framework and established court practices related to patent infringement damages in the United States and Japan, and tries to provide an explanation for why damages amounts awarded by US courts have remained significantly higher than in Japan. The discussion shows that the frameworks that govern the calculation of the types of patent damages do not put US patentees in a more favorable position than their Japanese counterparts. Enhanced damages that are available in the US but not in Japan do not seem to play a very significant role in US patent litigation and certainly cannot explain the difference in damages awarded. The differences in patent damages awards can be explained though by pointing to the market size and type of products and defendants that are engaged in litigation in the US and Japan.
During the last decade, the United States, the European Union, and Japan have taken major steps in harmonising trade secret protection. This harmonisation includes the arrival of apparently very similar definitions for what information can constitute a trade secret. One of the inherent requirements for trade secret protection is secrecy of the information in question, and policymakers, courts, and commentators have struggled with the question of how much effort an information owner must engage in to ensure such secrecy. This chapter looks into the evolution of the reasonable-efforts requirement in the United States, the reception of a seemingly equivalent standard in Japan throughout the last decades, and the recent implementation in the European Union and Germany.