They're not saying the case should have been bought in Japan or under Japanese jurisdiction (they admit it should be bought in the US, just that it should be bo

They're not saying the case should have been bought in Japan or under Japanese jurisdiction (they admit it should be bought in the US, just that it should be bought in New Jersey as that's where the alleged offence was committed and because to bring it anywhere else is deliberately inconvenient to the defendant). The point about SCEJ is that it should be them that should be bringing the case rather than SCEA. Personally that one feels like clutching at straws as it doesn't invalidate the alleged infringement, just this particular case. In the unlikely event that the judge threw it out based on this SCEJ would just bring the case using the same lawyers and the same materials (SCEJ and SCEA are both after all Sony and to assume that they wouldn't co-operate and share resource isn't really realistic).