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:

Key Revision Provisions

Kept as Confidential Information

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:

With respect to Generative AI, if the following conditions exist:

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:

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.

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.

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. 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:

Key Revision Provisions

Kept as Confidential Information

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:

With respect to Generative AI, if the following conditions exist:

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:

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.

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.

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.