The District Court granted Fujitsu’s motion to compel arbitration of the parties’ dispute, based on the clause for JCAA arbitration in their contract. The four requirements for compelling arbitration were met: there was an agreement in writing, providing for arbitration in a Convention signatory, Japan, and arising out of a commercial legal relationship, and at least one of the parties was not a US citizen. The Court denied Cypress’s contention that there was no arbitration agreement because the contract containing the arbitration clause had been superseded by a later contract that did not provide for arbitration; the Court reasoned that Fujitsu was not a party to that later contract. The Court then held that the issue whether some of Cypress’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause had been delegated to the arbitrators. It explained that although the Ninth Circuit had not considered whether incorporation of the JCAA Rules constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence of delegation of arbitrability, the relevant language in the JCAA Rules was indistinguishable from the language in the AAA Rules, and the Ninth Circuit has consistently held that incorporation of the AAA Rules is clear and unmistakable evidence of delegation.