Japan

On June 11, 2026, Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (Nagashima) hosted a reception in London to commemorate the opening of our London office. The event was attended by many distinguished guests, including representatives from the Embassy of Japan in the United Kingdom, as well as representatives from Japanese and local companies. Nagashima was represented by lawyers from our London office, together with lawyers from our Tokyo office, including lawyers from our European Practice Group, and lawyers from other offices and locations. Our London office has been operating smoothly since opening in August 2025. In close collaboration with our European Practice Group, our London office will continue to provide responsive and carefully tailored legal services for matters requiring a direct local presence, and to support our clients’ diverse business activities. View original article here.

In January 2026, the Intellectual Property Divisions of the Tokyo District Court (the “TDC IP Division”) published their “Guidelines for Standard Essential Patents Judicial Mediation (SEPJM)” (the “Guidelines”)[1] which follows the earlier publication of the TDC IP Division’s “Guidelines for Patent Infringement Lawsuits Involving Standard Essential Patents” (the “SEP Lawsuit Guidelines”)[2],[3].  The Guidelines announced the TDC IP Division’s decision to implement judicial mediation for dispute cases involving standard essential patents (“SEPs”; and such mediation, “SEP Judicial Mediation”), as a special procedure under the intellectual property judicial mediation procedure[4], and set out important points regarding the SEP Judicial Mediation. According to the Guidelines, SEP Judicial Mediation is intended to resolve SEP‑related disputes including disputes over the licensing royalty under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms for the SEP holder’s entire global SEP portfolio (such royalty hereinafter referred to as the “Global FRAND Royalty”), on a global basis (i.e., not limited to disputes that arise in Japan) in a more expeditious manner than a SEP Lawsuit administered under the SEP Lawsuit Guidelines. In addition, where a settlement is not reached through mediation, the Guidelines address a point that is expected to influence consideration of the abuse of rights defense (the so-called FRAND defense) in a subsequent lawsuit or preliminary injunction proceeding. Accordingly, the Guidelines will likely have a significant impact on strategies for SEP-related disputes including whether parties should choose to bring a SEP Lawsuit initially or file a petition for SEP Judicial Mediation. We provide below a basic flowchart (with comments) describing the presumed progression of proceedings in a SEP Judicial Mediation in light of the Guidelines, and notable points regarding the Guidelines. [1] Our unofficial English translation of the Guidelines is provided as an annex to this newsletter for reference purposes only. The Guidelines (in Japanese) are published on the Tokyo District Court’s page on the website of the Courts in Japan (URL: https://www.courts.go.jp/tokyo/saiban/minzi_section29_40_46_47/SEPJM_chizai_jiken_teiki/index_2_1.html) (last accessed: April 1, 2026). As of April 1, 2026, the Intellectual Property Divisions of the Osaka District Court have not published similar guidelines for SEP-related judicial mediation. [2] For a overview analysis of the SEP Lawsuit Guidelines, please see our firm’s newsletter “Publication of the “Guidelines for Patent Infringement Lawsuits Involving Standard Essential Patents” by the Intellectual Property Divisions of the Tokyo District Court.” (NO&T IP Law Update No.17 (March, 2026)) [3] To add some further context regarding SEP lawsuits in Japan, in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Japan GK case, the Intellectual Property High Court, in its judgment of May 16, 2014, ruled that Samsung, the patent holder, was not entitled to seek an injunction against Apple to stop sales of certain Apple products based on its finding that “Apple Inc. and Apple Japan have a willingness to obtain a license on FRAND terms” and concluded that “the exercise of the injunction right based on the patent right in question constitutes an abuse of rights (Article 1(3) of the Civil Code).” After that decision, there were virtually no court decisions addressing this issue until early 2025. However, on June 23, 2025, in the Pantech v. Google case, the Tokyo District Court issued a judgment (the “Tokyo District Court Judgment”) granting an injunction based on a FRAND-committed SEP for the first time in Japan. For a summary of the Tokyo District Court Judgment and its significance, please see our firm’s newsletter “The Japanese court first judgment to grant an injunction based on a FRAND‑committed SEP” (NO&T IP Law Update No.16 (November, 2025)). [4] The “Operation of the Intellectual Property Mediation Procedure” (in Japanese) setting out the TDC IP Division’s guidelines for intellectual property judicial mediations, is published on the Tokyo District Court’s page on the website of the Courts in Japan (URL: https://www.courts.go.jp/tokyo/saiban/minzi_section29_40_46_47/tizaityoutei/index.html), and a corresponding English guide, “Guide to IP Conciliation Proceedings,” is published on the Intellectual Property High Court’s page on the website of the Courts in Japan (URL: https://www.courts.go.jp/ip/eng/vc-files/eng/file/Guide_to_IP_Conciliation_Proceedings.pdf). View original article here Authors: Kenji Tosaki (Partner) Takahiro Hatori (Partner) Yujiro Fukuhara

Introduction Under the current Japanese tax framework, income derived from crypto asset transactions is generally not treated as capital gains, but, classified either as business income or miscellaneous income.  As a consequence, such income is subject to income tax in Japan at progressive rates, with a combined national and local maximum rate of 55.945%. This heavy tax burden compared to other developed countries has long been regarded as a major obstacle to crypto-related investment activities in Japan.  It is also an important consideration for foreign individuals holding significant volume of crypto assets when contemplating relocation to Japan or engaging in trading activities of crypto assets connected to the Japanese market. The Outline of 2026 Tax Reform released last December by the ruling parties and government indicates a substantial shift in the policy of crypto related taxation.  The reform contemplates the introduction of a fixed-rate separate taxation regime applicable to certain crypto asset transactions.  Given the potential impact of this development on foreign investors with ties to Japan, it is important to consider both the scope of the proposed regime and its implications to foreign investors.  Please note, however, that, at the time of writing, since the legislative wording related to the new regime has not been fully published, the precise scope of the regime has not yet been fully clarified. View original article here. [Author] Tsutomu Endo (Partner)

Introduction The ongoing volatility in the Middle East, exacerbated by the 2026 blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, has transitioned renewable energy from a long-term target into an immediate national security issue. Floating offshore wind can provide the necessary scale in renewable energy by unlocking the power potential of deeper waters. While traditional fixed bottom offshore wind projects are geographically limited to shallow coastal shelves, floating offshore wind projects can be deployed in deeper waters where wind speeds are significantly higher and more consistent, leading to a higher capacity factor and more reliable electricity generation. Furthermore, by moving projects further offshore, developers can mitigate the common "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) challenges associated with visual landscape intrusion and reduce interference with near-shore activities such as fishing and shipping. Japan has a huge potential for floating offshore wind due to its geography: an archipelago with a narrow continental shelf that drops off rapidly into deep water. Approximately 80% of Japan's offshore wind potential is in deeper waters, where only floating offshore wind is viable. Furthermore, Japan possesses the sixth-largest Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the world - a maritime territory roughly 12 times larger than its landmass – which is particularly significant following the 2025 legislative expansions allowing its development. Europe, however, is currently the leading region for commercial-scale floating offshore wind projects. Several smaller operational commercial projects have paved the way for a pipeline of large scale commercial projects, including the 3,600 MW Ossian and the combined 1,900 MW Cenos and Green Volt projects in the UK, and the 1,500 MW Utsira Nord project in Norway. To reach the industrial scale required for cost-competitiveness, European governments have played a central role, establishing robust policy and regulatory frameworks that provide the long-term certainty necessary to attract significant private investment and debt finance. View original article here. [Authors] Kiyoshi Honda, Partner Tak Matsuda