Japan

Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu is pleased to announce that it commenced operations at its London office on 11 August 2025. Kiyoshi Honda, who heads the London office, brings extensive experience in handling cross-border transactions in the U.K. and continental Europe, with particular expertise in renewable energy, environmental law, and real estate, after earning his LL.M. at University College London Faculty of Laws. In addition, Tak Matsuda, who has practiced at leading U.K. law firms and is currently practicing as a Solicitor at his own firm, will serve as a special advisor to our London office. By collaborating closely with our Tokyo-based European Practice Group and leveraging our extensive network of leading law firms in the U.K. and across continental Europe, we are well-positioned to provide comprehensive, timely legal advice, tailored to our clients’ various needs, based on the latest local market developments and regulatory changes. View original article here

On July 18, 2025, Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (NO&T) hosted a reception in Hanoi City to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the opening of its Hanoi office. The event was attended by distinguished guests, including His Excellency Mr. Naoki Ito, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, as well as representatives from Japanese and local companies. NO&T was represented by lawyers from our Hanoi office together with lawyers from our Tokyo office and other offices and locations in Asia. Since its establishment in April 2015, our Hanoi office has steadily expanded its operations and team size. We provide one-stop legal services for Japanese companies’ investment projects in Vietnam, M&A and real estate development projects in Vietnam, and dispute resolution through the collaboration of Vietnamese lawyers with expertise in local law and Japanese lawyers based in Vietnam who are well-versed in Japanese corporate culture and international transactions. Looking ahead, our Vietnam offices remain committed to supporting our clients’ business development with greater efficiency and responsiveness. Our team of Vietnam-based lawyers are well-positioned to provide direct, local legal services, in collaboration with our Tokyo office and other offices and locations in Asia, and to support our clients’ evolving needs through tailored legal services. View original article here.

I. Introduction The digitalization of civil litigation procedures in Japan began with the introduction of teleconferencing and video conferencing systems under the 2010 amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure. The use of teleconference had become widely adopted, enabling parties or their representatives located far from the courts to participate in preparatory proceedings to arrange issues and evidence. However, many aspects of civil litigation in Japan have yet to be modernized. For instance: ･　as a general requirement, paper documents must be lodged in order to file a lawsuit; ･　parties and their representatives are required to physically attend dates for oral arguments; and ･　court records are kept in paper form and people who wish to inspect the records are required to visit the courthouse. These days, where information and communication technology has advanced significantly, the digitalization of civil litigation is being promoted to make civil litigation more efficient and accessible to parties. This article provides an overview of the recent changes relating to the digitalization of civil litigation in Japan that are being introduced through the enactment of further amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure. [1] View original article here. Author: Hiroki Tajima, Partner [1] The amended Code of Civil Procedure has already been promulgated and will come into effect from the date specified by a Cabinet Order, which must occur by May 24, 2026. Certain of these changes have already come into effect, as noted in this article.  

Revisions to Trade Secret Management Guidelines   In March 2025, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (“METI”) updated its Trade Secret Management Guidelines (“Guidelines”) to reflect current changes in technology and recent legal trends. Some of the more salient revisions are described below, but the list is not exhaustive. Please contact us if you would like more information.   Definition of Trade Secret In order for a “Trade Secret” to be protected under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, a company needs to show that the information is technical or business information, which: is useful, kept confidential using appropriate control measures, and is not publicly known.   Key Revision Provisions Kept as Confidential Information Appropriate Control Measures: Types of Parties Previously the Guidelines did not distinguish between what constituted sufficient control measures depending on the party with access to the trade secrets. However, the recent amendments clarify what may be considered sufficient control measures based on the following types: Employees and Directors: What kind of system is in place in order for employees to be aware that the information is considered confidential and that special treatment is necessary. Business Partners: Whether confidential information was shared with a business partner after a confidentiality agreement was concluded. The absence of a confidentiality agreement does not necessarily mean that there were insufficient control measures, and evidence of other measures may still be presented. Appropriate Control Measures: Clarification of Measures for Employees and Directors The recent amendments clarify that, if it is obvious to employees that the information is important and naturally expected to be treated as confidential information, the following general measures may be considered sufficient control measures based on the following types. IDs and passwords are used to restrict access when logging into company computers, etc. Work rules, confidentiality agreements, etc. include language prohibiting disclosure of confidential information. Strictly limiting access on an employee-by-employee basis is not necessary, and broadly granting access rights to a specific department based on business necessity is considered to be sufficient limitations. Appropriate Control Measures: Generative AI With respect to Generative AI, if the following conditions exist: The information is kept and managed as a secret by one division of the company, The secret information is used learning data to train a model, and As a result of a prompt, the generative AI outputs information that contains the secret information and this generated output is made available to the same or a different division, Then, these facts alone are not sufficient to show that the confidentiality of the information has been negated. However, if the different division subsequently incorporates, distributes or otherwise provides the generated output containing the confidential information to an unspecified third party, the information would no longer be considered as “not publicly known”.   Not Publicly Known Several issues with respect to whether information is considered to be known by the public have been discussed in recent years, and METI’s perspective has been reflected in the Guidelines as follows: Information Leaked on the Dark Web The mere fact that secret information has been published on the dark web does not mean that the information is no longer considered to be “non-public”, and courts will still consider whether the information was generally known or easily accessible. Synthesizing Publicly Available Information Even if the parts of the information are considered to be publicly known or easily accessible, if the combination of such publicly known or easily accessible information is not considered to be known or easily accessible (e.g. due to the time and cost needed to acquire the information), then such information would not be considered known or easily accessible, and the information would retain its proprietary value. Reverse Engineering Whether or not the reverse engineering of a trade secret can be considered to have negated the non-public nature of the information depends on the level of difficulty for reverse engineering the information. In particular, if anyone can analyze the product and very easily reverse engineer the product, then the commercialization of the product is considered to be equivalent to disclosing the trade secret itself. However, if special skills are required and a considerable period of time is needed to reverse engineer the product, then merely making the product commercially available will not negate the non-public nature of the information.