Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu logo

Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu

Show options

News and developments

Press Releases

NO&T Hosts Reception Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of its Hanoi Office

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.
19 August 2025
Press Releases

Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu Commences Operations at its London Office

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
18 August 2025
Dispute Resolution

Digitalization of Civil Litigation Procedures in Japan

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.  
22 July 2025
Real Estate

Real Estate Crowdfunding Regulations in Japan

I. Introduction Crowdfunding is a method of raising money to finance projects and businesses that enables fundraisers to collect money from a large number of people via online platforms. There exists a variety of crowdfunding platforms serving industries like technology, the arts, and social causes, as well as real estate. Although there are several types of crowdfunding for investment in the real estate sector (e.g., donation, lending and others), this article focuses on regulations governing equity-based real estate crowdfunding in Japan, focusing on the Act on Specified Joint Real Estate Venture. View original article here. Author: Takehito Matsumoto, Partner
14 July 2025
Press Releases

NO&T Hosts Reception Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of its Shanghai Office

On February 20, 2025, Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (NO&T) hosted a reception in Shanghai to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the opening of its Shanghai office. The event was attended by many distinguished guests, including Mr. Masaru Okada, Consul-General, Consulate-General of Japan in Shanghai, Mr. Wanquan Shao, President of the Shanghai Bar Association, as well as representatives from both Japanese and Chinese authorities and companies. Lawyers and advisors from our Shanghai office together with lawyers from our Tokyo office and other offices and locations in Asia also attended the event. Since its establishment in November 2014, our Shanghai office has steadily expanded its capabilities, providing Japanese companies in China with legal services tailored to their needs in mergers and acquisitions, corporate restructuring, dispute resolution, compliance, and finance. Concurrently, we have also been providing legal services to Chinese companies in connection with their investments in Japan and cross-border transactions and business relationships with Japanese companies. As we express our gratitude for your support over the past decade, we remain committed to enhancing our legal services in the future by leveraging our firm’s expertise across practice groups in our Tokyo office and other offices and locations, as well as by collaborating with local counsel and advisors in various fields. We aim to assist Japanese and Chinese companies navigate the increasingly complex international business environment and capitalize on significant opportunities presented by the evolving Japan-China business relationship. View original article here.
04 July 2025
Press Releases

NO&T Hosts Reception Celebrating the Opening of its London Office and NO&T Europe Week

On May 21, 2025, Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (NO&T) hosted a reception in Tokyo to celebrate the opening of our London office and NO&T Europe Week. The reception was attended by many distinguished guests, including representatives from companies engaged in business activities across Europe. NO&T was represented by lawyers from our Tokyo office, including lawyers from our European Practice Group. In connection with the reception, we also held NO&T Europe Week, a three-day program featuring seminars with presentations by members of our European Practice Group, including Kiyoshi Honda, who will serve as head of our London office, and the authors of “Business EU Law”. The seminars provided a comprehensive overview of a wide range of legal considerations for Japanese companies operating in Europe, including regulations related to the green and sustainability sectors in Europe, recent developments in M&A practice, AI and digital regulations, and data protection regulations. Last year, NO&T decided to establish Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu UK Ltd. in London, marking our first permanent presence in Europe. Our London office will commence operations upon completion of the administrative procedures currently underway. In collaboration with our European Practice Group, our London office will provide legal services directly and locally, and support our clients’ diverse business activities with responsive and well-informed legal solutions. View original article here.
25 June 2025
Artificial Intelligence

AI Update - AI Inventorship: IP High Court in Japan Rules AI Cannot Be Listed as Inventor

Executive Summary A recent ruling has reinforced that judicial interpretation alone cannot extend inventorship to AI systems under existing patent law. On January 30, 2025, the Japanese Intellectual Property High Court ruled that AI-generated inventions cannot receive patent protection under the current Japanese patent law. [1] The Court held that the current Patent Act only provides a framework for granting patents for inventions made by natural persons, both in terms of rights and procedures. This decision comes amid the global debate on AI-generated intellectual property and is aligned with similar rulings in other major jurisdictions. This ruling takes on particular significance as AI technologies rapidly evolve. With the accelerating development of generative AI and AI agents, both innovators and legal systems worldwide face the increasingly pressing question of whether and how patent regimes should adapt to address innovations where AI functions autonomously in the inventive process. Case Background This case is part of the internationally renowned “DABUS” litigation—a globally significant test case for AI inventorship that has been pursued in many countries and regions including the US, UK, EU member states, Australia, South Africa, and China.[2] DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) is an AI system developed by Dr. Stephen Thaler. The plaintiff filed an international patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) for an invention titled “food container and devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention”, claiming priority based on a European Patent Office filing.[3] In the national patent application[4] documents, the plaintiff listed “DABUS, an artificial intelligence that autonomously generated this invention” as the inventor. The Japan Patent Office (JPO) ordered the plaintiff to amend the application to list a natural person as the inventor. The plaintiff refused, arguing that “inventions” under the Patent Act include those autonomously created by AI without human intervention, and therefore, the inventor’s name was not a requirement for such applications. Consequently, the JPO dismissed the application. After an unsuccessful administrative review, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Tokyo District Court. The District Court ruled against the plaintiff, holding that “the ‘inventor’ as provided in the Patent Act should be interpreted as being limited to natural persons.”[5] The plaintiff subsequently appealed to the IP High Court. The IP High Court’s Ruling Key Issues Addressed The IP High Court identified two central questions: Whether “inventions” protected by patent rights are limited to those made by natural persons[6] Whether listing the “inventor’s name” is a mandatory requirement in the national phase documents for international patent applications Analysis of Patent Law’s Dual Nature The Court specifically concluded that “current patent law only recognizes and establishes procedures for granting patent rights for inventions where a natural person is the inventor.” The Court began by analyzing the Japanese Patent Act as having dual characteristics: as substantive law defining the requirements and effects of patent rights, and as procedural law establishing the framework for granting those rights.[7] The Court conducted a systematic analysis of provisions relating to the establishment and original attribution of the right to obtain a patent. It specifically examined Article 29(1) (regarding attribution when a natural person makes an invention) and Article 35(3) (regarding attribution to employers for work-for-hire inventions). The Court also compared the terminology used in various application documents, contrasting “Shimei” (i.e., a name for a natural person) required for inventors with “Meisho” (i.e., a name typically used for an entity) specified for patent applicants or patentees, noting that this distinction further supports the Court's interpretation that inventors must be natural persons. The Court noted that no other provisions exist regarding the establishment or original attribution of the right to obtain a patent, concluding that “under the Patent Act, the right to obtain a patent is only established when a natural person is the inventor.” Importantly, the Court concluded that “current patent law only recognizes and establishes procedures for granting patent rights for inventions where a natural person is the inventor. Therefore, AI-generated inventions cannot be granted patents under this law. Thus, without even determining whether AI-generated inventions fall within the concept of ‘invention’ under patent law, the plaintiff’s claim that patent grants are possible for AI-generated inventions under the Patent Act is groundless.” Rejection of Plaintiff’s Arguments The Court addressed the plaintiff’s argument that the concept of “invention” under the Patent Act itself is not limited to cases where a natural person is the inventor. The Court determined that even if this interpretation were to be accepted, the current Patent Act provides no procedural pathway to grant patent rights for “inventions” where the inventor lacks legal capacity. In addition, the Court emphasized that the interpretation of the Patent Act must be based on the wording of Article 29(1) and its consistency with other provisions, concluding that “person who has made an invention” refers to a natural person. The Court further noted that there is no avenue within the current legal framework to grant patent rights to entities lacking legal capacity, including AI systems. Civil Code Arguments Also Rejected The plaintiff also argued that as the creator and manager of DABUS, they had rights to the patent application based on Civil Code provisions for the right to fruits (beneficial ownership of products derived from property). Specifically, they invoked the provisions applicable to possessors in good faith (Civil Code Articles 189(1) and 205) and owners (Civil Code Articles 206 and 89(1)). The Court rejected this argument on three grounds: AI is not a tangible object and cannot be subject to ownership rights Even if an AI user were considered a person exercising property rights under the Civil Code, “the right to obtain a patent for an AI-generated invention” does not qualify as “fruits” since no foundational right exists. Specifically, the Court noted that the right to obtain a patent for an AI-generated invention does not constitute either “products derived from a thing in accordance with its intended purpose” or “money or other things to be obtained as compensation for the use of a thing” under Civil Code Article 88(1) and (2) respectively Rights not recognized under the Patent Act cannot be created through Civil Code provisions This reasoning differed notably from the Tokyo District Court’s approach, which had rejected the Civil Code argument by stating that while the Civil Code might specify who can acquire fruits, it “does not directly identify the inventive entity of the patent right itself that generates the fruits.” Inventor’s Name as Mandatory Requirement Based on the relevant Patent Act provisions,[8] the Court held that the “inventor’s name” is indeed a mandatory element in national phase documents for international patent applications. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that for AI-generated invention applications, the inventor’s name should not be mandatory. It noted that since current patent law presupposes inventors to be natural persons, it is a logical consequence that the inventor’s name be required to be that of a natural person. Addressing Practical Concerns The Court acknowledged the practical issues raised by the plaintiff, including the potential increase in applications falsely naming natural persons as inventors and the difficulty in invalidating such patents. However, it determined that these issues reflect gaps in the current legal framework rather than justify a reinterpretation of existing law. The Court noted that misappropriation applications can be grounds for patent rejection decisions and can be asserted as patent invalidity defenses in infringement litigation. While recognizing that there might be no interested party with standing to request patent invalidation for AI-generated inventions, the Court viewed this as a situation not contemplated by current law, rather than grounds for changing its interpretation. Legislative Considerations The IP High Court acknowledged that whether to grant patent rights for AI-generated inventions requires comprehensive policy discussions that cannot be resolved through judicial interpretation alone. The Court recognized this as a matter that should be examined as part of legislative policy considerations rather than one that warranted a reinterpretation of current law. The Court specifically emphasized that “patent rights are not inherent natural rights, but rather rights granted based on the Patent Act, which aims to ‘encourage inventions and thereby contribute to the development of industry.’ The design of such a system should be discussed from the perspective of national industrial policy, including aspects of international cooperation.” This statement clearly positions patent protection as a policy instrument established to achieve specific industrial development goals rather than an absolute right. Comparison of District Court and High Court Approaches While both courts reached the same conclusion—that AI cannot be listed as an inventor under current Japanese patent law—their reasoning differed in important ways. The Tokyo District Court focused primarily on interpreting the concept of “inventor” itself, concluding that this term is limited to natural persons, after considering the Intellectual Property Basic Act, various Patent Act provisions, and the impracticalities that would arise if “inventor” were interpreted to include AI. In contrast, the IP High Court approached the issue by examining the Patent Act’s dual nature as both substantive and procedural law. It concluded that the current legal framework only recognizes and establishes procedures for granting patent rights when a natural person is the inventor, leaving no avenue for inventions made by entities lacking legal capacity (including AI systems), regardless of whether they conceptually qualify as “inventions” under the law. Notably, the Court deliberately avoided making any determination on whether AI-generated inventions conceptually qualify as “inventions” under the law. This approach allowed the Court to resolve the case without addressing this more fundamental question. Conclusion This ruling highlights an important challenge facing patent systems: how to align established legal frameworks designed for human inventors with the reality of increasingly autonomous AI systems. The distinction between AI as a tool that assists human inventors versus AI as an autonomous creator will require careful analysis as the technology continues to evolve. While the former can be addressed within existing frameworks, the latter may eventually necessitate legislative discussions to update the patent system. Any development of the patent system must balance two important interests: maintaining the Patent Act’s foundational purpose of “encouraging inventions through protection and utilization,” while establishing clear rules that address the specific characteristics of AI-generated innovations. Such clarity will benefit both legal practitioners and innovators as AI continues to play a growing role in technological advancement. March 17, 2025 View original article here.   Authors Keiji Tonomura (Partner) [email protected] Keiji Tonomura advises on M&A, IP/IT-related transactions, and data security/privacy matters, with a particular focus on the TMT sectors. His practice includes work in emerging technology fields such as AI, fintech and blockchain, as well as digital media, entertainment, telecommunications, and space. He also handles venture investments, startup legal affairs, and corporate governance matters. He served as a member of the Working Group for the Study Group on "AI and Data Contract Guidelines" at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan (2018-2019) and has been a member of the Working Group for the Liberal Democratic Party's "Project Team on the Evolution and Implementation of AI" since 2023. He was ranked #1 in the AI, Technology and Data category in the 2024 Corporate Legal and Tax Attorney Survey by Nikkei. Internationally, he has been recognized in Chambers Asia-Pacific, Legal 500 Asia Pacific, and selected as one of ALB's Asia Super 50 TMT Lawyers 2024, achieving Band 1 rankings in Japan's TMT sector. Yoshiteru Matsuzaki [email protected] Yoshiteru Matsuzaki advises clients on various technology-related legal matters and complex commercial transactions, with particular focus on AI services, autonomous driving, MaaS, and digital platforms. His practice also covers IT contracts, cybersecurity issues, and advising R&D-focused startups. He graduated from Tokyo University of the Arts, Faculty of Fine Arts in 2006 and Sophia University Law School in 2009. He worked at IBM Japan, Ltd. from 2011 to 2017 before joining Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu. He received his LL.M. with Law & Technology Certificate and Business Law Certificate from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 2023. Masahiro Kondo [email protected] Masahiro Kondo specializes in intellectual property (IP) litigation and complex commercial litigation. His IP expertise includes a wide variety of matters (patents, copyrights, trademarks, design rights, unfair competition and trade secrets), with particular expertise in product design protection in both virtual and physical spaces. He also covers TMT matters, including data protection. He graduated from Waseda University Faculty of Law in 2011 and Waseda University Law School in 2013. He was admitted to the bar in 2014 and joined Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu. He received his LL.M. in Intellectual Property Law from the University of Leeds in 2020. Since April 2023, he has also served as a part-time lecturer of Information I at a private high school in Tokyo.   Editor Keiji Tonomura (Partner) [email protected] Keiji Tonomura provides advice on a wide range of corporate legal matters, with a focus on mergers and acquisitions (M&A) transactions and intellectual property-related transactions. In addition to having extensive experience in TMT industry cases, he also handles numerous cases in new business fields created by the development of technologies such as the sharing economy, Fintech, IoT, and AI.   [1] Case No. 2024 (Gyo-ko) No. 10006. As of March 13, 2025, the Japanese version of the judgment is available on the court’s website. [2] According to the official website of The Artificial Inventor Project, patent applications filed in South Africa, the United Kingdom, Europe, Germany, Israel, South Korea, Japan, New Zealand, China, the United States, Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Brazil, India, Singapore, and Switzerland as of the present time. [3] WO 2020/079499 AI; PCT/IB2019/057809 [4] Application No. JP 2020-543051 [5] Case No. 2023 (Gyo-U) No. 5001. For more information on the Tokyo District Court decision, please see our newsletter: June, 2024, Technology Law Update No. 2, IP Law Update No. 5, “Recent Ruling from Tokyo District Court: AI Does Not Qualify as Inventor” (last accessed: March 17, 2025). [6] It is worth noting that the Tokyo District Court framed the issue slightly differently, identifying the key question as “whether ‘inventor’ under the Patent Act is limited to natural persons.” This framing focused on the nature of the “inventor” itself, while the IP High Court’s framing addresses whether inventions can be “protected” by patent rights. [7] The Court specifically cited Articles 1 and 66(1) of the Patent Act in its analysis. [8] The relevant provisions are: Patent Act, Article 184-5(1) main clause and item (2); Article 184-5(2) main clause and item (3); and Patent Act Enforcement Regulations, Article 38-5(1).
12 May 2025
Intellectual Property

Judgment rendered by the Grand Panel of the Intellectual Property High Court on March 19, 2025, regarding the patentability of compositions which contemplate medical procedures both before and after manufacture

Introduction On March 19, 2025, the Grand Panel of the Intellectual Property High Court (the “IPHC”) rendered their judgment in a patent infringement case. The court reversed a Tokyo District Court’s judgment and found that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff’s patent. This case represents the 16th Grand Panel judgment of the IPHC[1] and was subject to a proceeding calling for third-party opinions (Japanese procedure allowing for non-party submissions of briefs similar to amicus curiae briefs)[2]. This newsletter provides an overview and explains the significance of this judgment based on the text of the judgment published on the official website of the IPHC. View original article here. [Authors] Kenji Tosaki (Partner) Masato Kumeuchi (Partner) Soichiro Unami   [1] A Grand Panel judgment is not a judgment relating to a single case; rather, several judgments/decisions relating to several cases addressing the same legal issues were rendered by the Grand Panel of the IPHC on the same day. By counting such group of judgments/decisions collectively as one Grand Panel judgment, this case is recognized as the 16th Grand Panel judgment issued. [2] A proceeding calling for third-party opinions (set out in Article 105(2-11) of the Patent Act) was introduced by the 2021 amendment to the Patent Act. This case is the second case in which third-party opinions were solicited by way of this proceeding. For information on the first case where third-party opinions were solicited, please refer to our NO&T IP Law Update No.1,  “Judgment rendered by the Grand Panel of the Intellectual Property High Court on May 26, 2023, regarding the Principle of Territoriality” (June 2023) and No.10, “Patents: – The Principle of Territoriality: Two Notable Judgments of the Supreme Court of Japan rendered on March 3, 2025” (March 2025).
28 April 2025
Intellectual Property

Patents: – The Principle of Territoriality: Two Notable Judgments of the Supreme Court of Japan rendered on March 3, 2025

NEW JUDGMENTS – Principle of Territoriality and Infringement of Japanese Patent Rights regarding “Network-Related Inventions” 1.          Summary The Supreme Court of Japan rendered two unprecedented judgments on March 3, 2025, addressing the application of the principle of territoriality of patents to cross-border activities. In short, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time in its history that cross-border activities, including the use of servers located outside Japan, can constitute the “implementation” of a patented invention and therefore an infringement of a Japanese patent right. In this newsletter, we explain these judgments and provide our summary commentary on them. View original article here. [Authors] Kenji Tosaki (Partner) Takahiro Hatori Nozomi Kato  
28 April 2025
Intellectual Property

Update: A Second Court Decision addressing Patent Linkage and Unfair Competition

Introduction As reported in NO&T IP Law Update No.8, on October 28, 2024, the Tokyo District Court issued a decision in a case involving a biosimilar manufacturer seeking a preliminary injunction against a patent holder (Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. v. Bayer HealthCare LLC. (Case Number: 2024 (Yo) 30029), hereinafter referred to as the “Bayer Case”). This decision is notable in that it addressed, for the first time, whether a statement concerning a potential infringement made by a patent holder to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (the “MHLW”), under the patent linkage system[1] may constitute “unfair competition” as defined in the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (the “UCPA”). Following the Bayer Case decision, this same issue was addressed in another Tokyo District Court decision, issued on December 16, 2024, in a preliminary injunction case brought by the same biosimilar manufacturer (i.e., Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as the “Claimant”) against a pharmaceutical product patent holder (i.e., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; hereinafter referred to as “Regeneron”) (Case Number: 2024 (Yo) 30028, hereinafter referred to as the “Regeneron Case”). What is noteworthy about the Regeneron Case decision is that the court dismissed the preliminary injunction application upon consideration of different criteria from those considered in the Bayer Case. In this newsletter, we provide an overview of the Tokyo District Court’s ruling in the Regeneron Case and provide our summary commentary in relation to this decision. View original article here. [Authors] Kenji Tosaki (Partner) Nozomi Kato   [1] For information regarding the patent linkage system in Japan, please refer to our NO&T IP Law Update No.8, “Recent Court Decision on (i) Scope of Medicinal Use Invention and (ii) Patent Linkage” (February, 2025).
28 April 2025
Marketing

Key points to consider when selling and purchasing the shares of a Japanese corporation through an IPO given the recent reforms to the Japanese IPO framework

Introduction The Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE”) is arguably one of the most attractive stock exchanges for listed stock in the world. According to World Federation of Exchanges, as of the end of January 2024, the aggregate market capitalization of TSE-listed companies was approximately USD 6.3 trillion, the 4th largest in the world. It is also an international exchange in terms of investors. According to the TSE, since 2015, non-Japanese investors made more than 60% of the trades for the stocks that are listed on the TSE’s Prime Market. However, the process for TSE listings and initial public offerings (IPO(s)) in Japan are somewhat unique and may not be well known to potential sellers and purchasers of Japanese shares. This article summarizes the key points to consider when selling and purchasing the shares of Japanese corporations through IPOs in a Q&A format. Selling Shares Q1.        After an IPO is made public and the marketing activities therefor are commenced, how long would it take to complete the IPO process? Unless the issuer adopts the “S-1” format (as discussed in Q4 below), it would generally take approximately one (1) month from the listing approval date of the IPO, which is usually when the IPO is first made public, to complete the IPO process[1],[2]. On the listing approval date, the issuer must file a securities registration statement (“SRS”), which is a publicly disclosed document, with the local finance bureau. The SRS must contain information concerning the securities, the issuing company and certain matters relating to the IPO. Upon the filing of the SRS, the issuer and the underwriters usually begin conducting the marketing activities therefor, including a management roadshow. The issuer also prepares a prospectus, which contains substantially the same information as the SRS and is delivered to potential investors at this stage. After conducting the management roadshow and hearing from certain institutional investors, the issuer and/or the seller decide on an estimated offer price range per share (kari joken). Once such estimated offer price range is decided, the underwriters begin the book-building process based on such estimated offer price range for a period of approximately a week and upon the completion of the book-building process, the issuer and/or the seller decide the final issue/selling price per share (this process is called “pricing”). Once the pricing is completed, an underwriting agreement and related agreements are executed, and for a period of approximately 6 business days after the pricing, the payments for the shares are made and the offering closes. [Standard Schedule of the Japanese IPO] Q2.        How is the selling price decided? Is it possible to set the selling price outside the estimated offer price range (kari joken)? The selling price is determined once the bookbuilding process is complete, and such determination is made by collecting actual demands from investors based on the estimated offer price range. After the amendment to the Guideline for the Disclosure of Corporate Affairs in 2023, setting the selling price outside the estimated offer price range became possible as long as all of the following conditions are met. a. The selling price shall be equal to or greater than 80% of the lower limit of the estimated offer price range and equal to or lower than 120% of the upper limit of the estimated offer price range; b. If, upon setting the selling price, the number of shares to be sold changes from the number disclosed at the time the estimated offer price range was decided, the number of shares to be sold after the change shall be equal to or greater than 80% of the number of shares to be sold disclosed at the time the estimated offer price range was decided and equal to or less than 120% of the number of shares to be sold disclosed at the time the estimated offer price range was decided; c. The product of the total number of shares to be issued and sold multiplied by the selling price shall be equal to or greater than 80% of the product of the total number of shares to be issued and sold disclosed at the time the estimated offer price range was decided multiplied by the lower limit of the estimated offer price range and shall be equal to or less than 120% of the product of the total number of shares to be issued and sold disclosed at the time the estimated offer price range was decided multiplied by the upper limit of the estimated offer price range; and d. An SRS or an amendment thereto discloses that the selling price and the number of shares to be sold would be decided within the scope outlined in a. through c. above. Q3.        What is the definition of the term “indicative price” (sotei kakaku)? The term “indicative price” (sotei kakaku) is the issue/selling price that must be disclosed in the SRS when it is filed on the listing approval date[3]. Legally speaking, it does not bind or affect the estimated offer price range or the final issue/selling price to be decided at a later stage in the IPO process. However, since the indicative price is disclosed before the commencement of the marketing activities, it is considered to have a certain de-facto impact on the later parts of the IPO pricing process. Q4.        What is the “S-1” format? How is it different from traditional Japanese IPOs? The “S-1” format is a new structure that was introduced upon an amendment to the Cabinet Office Order on Disclosure of Corporate Affairs and other regulations in 2023. It enables the issuer to file an SRS before the listing approval date, which would shorten the period between the listing approval date and the listing date. In December 2024, KIOXIA Holdings conducted the first-ever IPO using the “S-1” format. Before the “S-1” format was introduced, it had been pointed out that, in Japanese IPOs, there is an extended period of time between the listing approval date and the listing date (approximately one month as discussed in Q1 above), this extended period of time subjects investors to price fluctuation risks due to changes in market conditions, etc. and these risks are reflected in the IPO price, which results in a large discount. In response to such concern, in 2023, the Cabinet Office Order on Disclosure of Corporate Affairs and other regulations were amended in order to shorten the period from the listing approval date to the listing date by allowing the issuer to file an SRS prior to the listing approval date. Specifically, the amended regulations provide that, if an SRS is filed prior to the listing date, certain items in the SRS that are tied to the listing approval may be given within a certain range or be given as “undecided”. Therefore, under the “S-1” format, for example, an initially filed SRS does not need to include the indicative price, the number of shares to be sold or a specific offering timetable. The new “S-1” format is expected not only to shorten the period between the listing approval date and the listing date but also to encourage sufficient dialogue with institutional investors before the indicative price is decided. Under the traditional Japanese IPO process, contact with institutional investors prior to the listing approval date was conducted only to the extent that it did not violate the so-called “gun-jumping rule”, which prohibits any solicitation of purchasing securities before the filing of an SRS. Therefore, in the traditional Japanese IPO process, the indicative price is decided without any solicitations being made to investors. However, under the “S-1” format, it is possible to conduct activities that would fall under “solicitations” prior to the listing approval by filing an SRS prior to the listing approval date. Such activities before the listing approval date and after the initial filing of an SRS are considered to be the Japanese version of “testing the water” (“TTW”). By engaging in TTW, the “S-1” format is expected to enable the issuer and the seller to set an appropriate indicative price based on sufficient dialogue with institutional investors. [IPO Schedule under the S-1 format] Q5.        By when must a decision be made regarding the number of shares to be sold? The number of shares to be sold must be disclosed on the listing approval date, but it can be amended afterwards by filing an amendment to the SRS. However, an amendment to the number of shares to be sold on the pricing date is permitted only if the conditions under a. to c. in Q2 above are met. Otherwise, an amendment to the number of shares to be sold must be decided and disclosed 3 business days or more prior to the pricing date in order for the SRS to become effective as scheduled. Q6.        If the shareholders do not sell their shares in the IPO, would there be any lock-up restrictions on the shares not sold and held by the shareholders? Unless the statutory lock-up restriction under the TSE rules is imposed[4], there is no legal requirement that prohibits or restricts the shareholders from selling their shares after the IPO closing. However, it is an established practice for underwriters to require large shareholders to enter into lock-up agreements with them. The typical lock-up period is 90 to 180 days after the listing. Q7.        If there is only one selling shareholder in the IPO, what would be the deadline for such shareholder to withdraw from the transaction? Legally speaking, it would be possible for the selling shareholder to withdraw from the transaction any time before the pricing. After the pricing, it would not be possible to withdraw from the transaction unless a termination event under the underwriting agreement is triggered. Purchasing Shares Q1.        May non-Japanese investors purchase shares through an IPO? A Japanese IPO may accompany with an international offering outside Japan concurrently with a domestic offering pursuant to Regulation S and Rule 144A under U.S. securities laws. As long as an investor is an eligible investor, it can purchase the shares in such international offering. Otherwise, generally speaking, the investor would need to apply to purchase the shares in the domestic offering as a domestic investor. Q2.        How is the number of shares that can be purchased decided? Except for “oyabike” mentioned in Q3 below, the number of shares to be allocated to an investor in an IPO is decided by the underwriters at their sole discretion. Q3:        Is there any “cornerstone investor” system in Japanese IPOs? What is “oyabike”? As discussed in Q2 above, in principle, the underwriters may decide which investors will be allocated shares and the number of shares allocated to such investors at their sole discretion. However, under the rules of the Japan Securities Dealers Association (the “JSDA”), which is a self-regulatory organization for securities companies, if the requirements below are met, the issuer may decide which investors will be allocated shares and the number of shares allocated to such investors. Such allocation is referred to as “oyabike”. (x)    the underwriters decide that, even after “oyabike” is conducted, the allocations will be fair and appropriate; (y)    certain disclosures were made in the SRS regarding the investors who will be allocated shares; and (z)    the relevant investors agree not to transfer the allocated shares during the 180 day period after the closing of the offering. The JSDA established guidelines that further provide points to consider when making the decision in (x) above. In 2022, the guidelines were amended to make it clear that allocations to an “institutional investor that contributes to improving the corporate governance or corporate value of the issuer” would be permitted under the JSDA rules and that “oyabike” is currently considered to function as a cornerstone investor system in other jurisdictions. In addition, in recent cases, an issuer may sometimes disclose that a specific institutional investor is committed to purchase or is willing to purchase a specific number of shares at a specific price during the IPO process (such disclosure is typically made when the estimated offer price range (kari joken) has already been decided). This process is called “indication of interest”. Although the investor who showed such interest would not be exempted from the allocation rule discussed above, if the investor is an influential institutional investor, an announcement in respect of such interest by such investor during the IPO process can have a positive impact on the offering process. View original article here. Author: Motoki Saito Footnotes [1] Before the listing approval date, the underwriters and the TSE will conduct a listing examination. [2] This can be shortened in accordance with the amendment to the Act on Book Entry of Corporate Bonds and Shares. [3] Technically speaking, it is not a legal requirement to disclose the indicative issue/selling price “per share”, but the expected number of the shares to be issue/sold and the aggregate issue/selling price must be disclosed. [4] Under the TSE rules, in principle, shares and stock acquisition rights issued for a certain period prior to the listing are subject to lock-up for a period of 6 months.
23 April 2025
corporate

Unlocking the Possibility of Contingent Risk Insurance in M&A Contracts

Introduction: Why is Contingent Risk Insurance Needed? The use of representations and warranties insurance (so called “R&W insurance”) in M&A transactions has been increasing.This type of insurance has been widely adopted for overseas M&A deals, and its use for domestic M&A deals has also been increasing since around 2020, when major general insurance companies in Japan started to provide domestic R&W insurance. Now, R&W insurance has become a familiar tool for those involved in M&A transactions. However, it is important to note that R&W insurance does not cover all losses that may arise in relation to M&A contracts, and its coverage is limited to losses that satisfy the following requirements, among others: (1) a breach of a representations and warranties clause in the M&A contract needs to be established; (2) sufficient due diligence for the matter in issue must have been conducted before the execution of the M&A contract; and (3) such matter must not have been discovered during the contract-making process, including due diligence. Therefore, R&W insurance does not cover risks that have been identified during the course of conducting M&A deals (i.e. known risks). Usually, these risks will be dealt with through other arrangements, such as adjusting the purchase price or adding special indemnity provisions. However, these arrangements are subject to negotiations between the parties and there is no guarantee that the counterparty will agree to them. In the worst-case scenario, the deal could break due to the parties’ failure to reach an agreement on these arrangements. In this newsletter, we will provide an overview of contingent risk insurance, which is being introduced in Western countries, and how it is used as a solution to deal with known risks that cannot always be covered by R&W insurance or existing contractual arrangements. What are the Insurable Risks for Contingent Risk Insurance? Contingent risk insurance is literally a type of insurance that covers losses incurred due to contingent risks. It can be used not only in M&A deals but also in other broader contexts, and irrespective of whether the risks are known at the time of purchasing the insurance. Although there are other types of insurance that cover specific types of known risks, such as tax liability insurance and environmental liability insurance, contingent risk insurance can be utilized to address various kinds of known risks. That said, this does not mean that contingent risk insurance covers every potential liability. Indeed, the insurance company would examine whether it can insure the matter in issue from the following angles. Legal Risk: The risk to be covered by contingent risk insurance must be a legal one, so that the insurance company can examine and determine whether it is insurable. In other words, business risks, such as the feasibility of future business plans, would not be insurable. Probability of Risk Materializing: This refers to the probability that the risk will materialize and that losses will actually be incurred. In addition to the factual likelihood of whether the loss-causing event will occur, the strength of the legal basis supporting the insured’s position will also be relevant. As such, if the insurance company believes that the insured’s legal position is weak, the insurance company could conclude that the related risk is uninsurable. To this end, insurance companies will consider legal opinions submitted by the insured’s counsel for the purpose of determining whether the matter in issue is insurable. Quantum of Risk: This refers to whether the amount of the insured’s potential loss in the case where the risk materializes can be determined based on the law and precedents. Conversely, if the matter entails risks that involve unpredictable amounts of losses, the insurance company may refuse to insure the risk. In the underwriting process, the insurance company will examine whether the risk is insurable and how much the insurance premium should be. Among insurable risks, risks with low probabilities of materializing and whose potential losses can be quantified with more certainty tend to require lower premiums, compared with risks that have higher probabilities of materializing and whose potential losses are more difficult to quantify. Typical Situations for Contingent Risk Insurance As long as the risk which is found during the process of implementing M&A contracts is approved as an insurable risk based on the factors set out above, such risk can be covered by contingent risk insurance. In this section, we will look at some typical situations where contingent risk insurance might be a feasible solution for the matter in issue. Title to shares During the process of considering the feasibility of an M&A deal, defects related to title to shares may be discovered, such as flaws in the history of share transfers or lost share certificates. Although the practical risks of title defects are not always high, it is difficult to ignore such defects because they are issues related to the very subject matter of the transaction. One way to deal with such risks is to use contingent risk insurance. In terms of the criteria set forth above, title defects are a type of risk that is relatively easy to measure in terms of its likelihood to materialize and quantifiability. As a result, they are usually considered to be a risk that can be insured for a relatively low insurance premium. Pending lawsuits and other legal proceedings If, during the due diligence process, pending lawsuits or other legal proceedings are discovered, it may be possible to purchase contingent risk insurance for losses incurred in the event that an unfavorable judgment is rendered in respect of such legal proceedings (in lieu of including a special indemnity clause in the definitive agreement). For example, in a situation where a private equity fund is attempting to exit from a business as soon as possible, the use of contingent risk insurance would enable the fund to make a clean exit and achieve the early distribution of funds to its investors. Bridging gaps in contract negotiations In situations where the parties are in strong disagreement over the handling of known risks that are discovered during the M&A process, such as potential violations of laws and disputes with third parties, contingent risk insurance can be an option for both parties to reach a compromise. A similar result (i.e. bridging gaps in contract negotiations) can be achieved by using R&W insurance, but the difference is that contingent risk insurance covers specific known risks, as explained above. In this sense, it can be said that R&W insurance and contingent risk insurance can co-exist in a mutually complementary way. Conclusion Contingent risk insurance is being used in more and more M&A transactions around the world, and it is envisaged that contingent risk insurance will become a common tool in the foreseeable future, just like R&W insurance. By understanding its characteristics and using it appropriately, contingent risk insurance can be an extremely useful tool for overcoming difficult situations that arise in a transaction. We hope that this newsletter will assist readers who may be in such situations. *We would like to express our gratitude to Mr. Pin Li Lim of Marsh (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. for his valuable advice in drafting this newsletter. Please note that the contents of this newsletter do not in any way represent the official position or opinion of Marsh (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. View original article here. Authors: Wataru Matsumoto and  Kyosuke Ohno
20 February 2025
Tax Law

Taxation of Sponsorship Agreements with Professional Athletes

1.   Introduction There are a variety of corporate marketing strategies that a company may follow, one of which is to conclude a sponsorship agreement with an athlete in order to improve the recognition and image of its brand and products. A typical recent example would be the case of ITO EN, LTD., which concluded a global ambassador agreement with Shohei Ohtani of the Los Angeles Dodgers, resulting in increased sales volume and brand recognition.  Because high sponsorship fees are often paid to athletes in sponsorship agreements, it is important to accurately understand the tax implications of such agreements and to draft appropriate agreements.  In this newsletter, we will explain the tax implications when a company enters into a sponsorship agreement with an athlete and pays sponsorship fees. 2.    What sponsorship agreements are[1] While the term “sponsorship agreement” can include a variety of specifics, sports sponsorship can be defined as “a transaction in which a sponsor acquires the right to associate itself with the activities and events of a sports-related individual or organization and commercially exploit such association to enhance its own brand, product recognition, image, etc. and provides money, goods or services in exchange for such rights.”  As the contracting parties, the sponsor is generally a company that hopes to advertise its brands or products, and the other party (i.e., the rights holder) may be an athlete (a legal entity such as a management company or an asset management company may also be a party), a club team, a sports league, etc.  In addition, the rights acquired by the sponsor through the sponsorship agreement may include rights to make athletes wear a uniform, etc. bearing the sponsor’s logo, portrait and name usage rights, appearances in advertisements and various other rights.  The other contents of a sponsorship agreement are also usually unique and vary from case to case. The taxation of the sponsorship fees to be paid by the sponsor under a sponsorship agreement depends on many factors such as whether the contracting party is an individual or a corporation, a resident (domestic corporation) or a nonresident (foreign corporation) and the content of the sponsorship agreement (in particular, for what rights or services the sponsorship fees are to be paid).  Therefore, to prepare a sponsorship agreement, it is imperative to examine the provisions of the agreement from the perspective of the potential impacts on taxation. 3.   Taxation of sponsorship agreements (1) General remarks As mentioned above, sponsorship agreements can have various contents, and it is necessary to analyze the tax consequences of a sponsorship agreement according to its contents.  In the following, we will explain the taxation of sponsorship agreements assuming that a Japanese company will enter into a sponsorship agreement with a professional athlete who belongs to a club team in a foreign professional league and is a non-resident of Japan not having an office etc. in Japan.  The following explanation will cover the taxation of the right to (1) make the athlete wear uniforms, etc. bearing the sponsor’s logo mark; (2) use portrait rights, publicity rights, etc.; and (3) make the athlete appear in its advertisements.  It should be noted that an actual sponsorship agreement often provides for more than one of the rights in (1) through (3) above, and in such cases, it is necessary to consider for what rights or services the sponsorship fees are to be paid.  If there is a lack of clarity on this point that makes the tax consequences unclear, the sponsorship agreement may have to separately stipulate the amount of the sponsorship fees to be paid for each right or service to be provided by the athlete. (2) Right to make the athlete wear uniforms, etc. bearing the sponsor’s logo (i) Income tax If the sponsor pays the sponsorship fees to a non-resident athlete in exchange for the athlete’s obligation to wear a uniform bearing the sponsor’s logo or to use products (shoes or equipment, etc.) manufactured by the sponsor in competitions, the sponsorship fees would be subject to income tax in Japan if they fall under the category of domestic source income as enumerated in each item of Article 161(1) of the Income Tax Act.  If the athlete wears a uniform, etc. bearing the sponsor’s logo and receives the sponsorship fees, the sponsorship fees would be considered to be remuneration for rendering personal services under Article 161(1)(xii)(a) of the Income Tax Act.  The remuneration for rendering personal services is taxable if the athlete performs such services in Japan.  As such, if the athlete competes only overseas, he/she would not be subject to income tax in Japan since such athlete would not be considered to be providing personal services in Japan.  On the other hand, if the athlete competes not only overseas but also in Japan and the sponsorship fees include remuneration for competitions in Japan, that portion would be considered to be domestic source income.  Therefore, the sponsor paying the sponsorship fees would be required to withhold income tax at the rate of 20.42% (Article 161(1)(xii)(a), Article 212(1) and Article 213(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act). Depending on the country in which the athlete resides, a tax treaty may apply.  However, since a tax treaty basically allows the source country (i.e., the country where the athlete performs activities) to tax the income that the athlete earns from his or her activities[2], the tax treaty would not exempt or reduce the athlete’s income tax in Japan. The portion of the sponsorship fees paid by the sponsor that correspond to the competitions in Japan should be calculated using a reasonable percentage based on the contents of the agreement.  However, if the agreement stipulates various services to be provided by the athlete, there would be many difficulties in the calculation thereof.  In such cases, the parties to the agreement may agree in advance to determine the amount of the sponsorship fees for each service to be provided by the athlete and stipulate them in the agreement. (ii) Corporate tax Generally, the sponsorship fees that companies pay are considered to be advertising expenses, and therefore, the company paying the sponsorship fees can treat such sponsorship fees as a deductible expense in their corporate income tax returns. (iii) Consumption tax When considering whether the sponsorship fees to be paid to a non-resident athlete would be subject to Japanese consumption tax, the main issues would be whether the services to be provided by the athlete would be regarded as domestic transactions (taxable) or foreign transactions (nontaxable).  Since where the provision of services took place would be determined based on whether or not they were provided in Japan (Article 4(3)(ii) of the Consumption Tax Act), if the athlete participates only in competitions held abroad, the provision of services would be treated as a foreign transaction and consumption tax would not be imposed.  On the other hand, if the athlete participates in competitions not only abroad but also in Japan, the provision of services would be regarded as being performed both in and outside Japan, and where the provision of services took place would be determined based on the “location of the office, etc. of the person providing the services” (Article 6(2)(vi) of the Order for the Enforcement of the Consumption Tax Act; see also 5-7-15 of the Consumption Tax Act Basic Circular for practical guidance).  In this case, since the athlete would not have an office, etc. in Japan, the “location of the office, etc. of the person providing the services” would be considered to be outside Japan, and therefore, the provision of services related to the sponsorship fees would be considered to be an entirely foreign transaction, and consumption tax would not be imposed.[3]  The fact that consumption tax would not be imposed means that the athlete would not have to file a consumption tax return and pay consumption tax, but the sponsor who paid the sponsorship fees would not be allowed to deduct any amount as a purchase tax credit from the consumption tax to be paid to the government in its consumption tax return. (3) Use of portrait rights, publicity rights, etc. (i) Income tax A sponsor can use images, photographs, names, etc. of athletes in advertisements, etc., and in exchange therefor, the sponsor is to pay sponsorship fees to the athletes.  Although there is no explicit statute, portrait and publicity rights are judicially recognized[4] and do not fall under copyright.  Therefore, they do not fall under the category of royalties for a “copyright (including print rights, neighboring rights and any equivalent rights)” under Article 161(1)(xi)(b) of the Income Tax Act and other domestic source income enumerated in Article 161(1) of the Act.  As such, income tax would not be imposed on the sponsorship fees in Japan. (ii) Corporate tax Generally, sponsorship fees are considered to be advertising expenses for companies, and therefore, the company paying the sponsorship fees can treat such sponsorship fees as a deductible expense in their corporate income tax returns. (iii) Consumption tax It must be examined whether a provision of portrait rights, etc. by an athlete to a sponsor constitutes domestic transactions.  Since a provision of portrait rights, etc. is considered to be a lease of assets[5], whether or not it constitutes a domestic transaction would be determined based on the location of the office, etc. of the person who is leasing the assets (Article 6(1)(x) of the Order for the Enforcement of the Consumption Tax Act).  In this case, since the athlete does not have an office, etc. in Japan, the provision of portrait rights, etc. would be considered to be a foreign transaction, and therefore, consumption tax would not be imposed. (4) Advertising Appearances (i) Income tax A sponsor pays an athlete sponsorship fees in exchange for an athlete’s appearance in advertisements.  The appearance of the athlete in the advertisements would be considered to fall under the provision of personal services under Article 161(1)(xii)(a) of the Income Tax Act, and therefore, if the provision of services takes place in Japan, it would be considered to be domestic source income.  As such, if the filming of an advertisement featuring the athlete takes place in Japan, the sponsorship fees would be considered to be domestic source income.  In such case, the sponsor paying the sponsorship fees would be obligated to withhold income tax at the rate of 20.42% (Article 161(1)(xii)(a), Article 212(1) and Article 213(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act). As mentioned in (2)(i) above, depending on the country in which the athlete resides, a tax treaty may be applicable.  However, since a tax treaty basically allows the source country (i.e., the country where the athlete performs the activities) to tax the income earned from the athletes’ activities, the athlete’s income tax in Japan would not be reduced or exempted by the tax treaty.  With respect to “income derived by an individual who is a resident of a Contracting State as an entertainer ... or as a sportsman, from his personal activities as such exercised in the other Contracting State,” it is unclear how the wording thereof would apply to the appearance of the athlete in the advertisement.  In this regard, while appearing in the advertisement would not constitute the activities of an athlete or a sportsman, the provision in question should be interpreted to apply to the athlete because the athlete can be considered to be an “entertainer” in relation to said advertisement appearance.[6] In addition, in some cases, the athlete may receive compensation for broadcasting the advertisement in which he or she appears (i.e., compensation for broadcasting rights, etc. as copyright neighboring rights) under a sponsorship agreement.  If such compensation is received together with the fees for the appearance in the advertisement, they should be treated as fees for the provision of personal services rather than royalties (Income Tax Basic Circular 161-22[7]). (ii) Corporate tax Generally, sponsorship fees are considered to be advertising expenses for companies, and therefore, the company paying the sponsorship fees can treat such sponsorship fees as a deductible expense in their corporate income tax returns. (iii) Consumption tax It must be examined whether the provision of services (i.e., appearing in an advertisement) took place in Japan (taxable as a domestic transaction) or abroad (not taxable as a foreign transaction) (Article 6(2)(vi) of the Order for the Enforcement of the Consumption Tax Act).  If the advertisement was filmed in Japan, the provision of services would be considered to be a domestic transaction and subject to consumption tax.[8]  The athlete’s appearance in the advertisement would be considered to be a “provision of specific services” (Article 2(1)(viii)-5 of the Consumption Tax Act and Article 2(2) of the Order for the Enforcement of the Consumption Tax Act), and consumption tax would be imposed due to the application of the reverse charge mechanism.  Therefore, the athlete would not be obligated to file a consumption tax return and pay consumption tax, but the sponsor would be obligated to file a tax return and pay the consumption tax, and such amount paid can be deducted as a purchase tax credit (Articles 5(1), 28(2), 30(1) and 45(1)(i) of the Consumption Tax Act).[9]  On the other hand, if the filming of the advertisement took place abroad, the provision of services would fall under foreign transactions as the services were performed outside of Japan and would not be subject to consumption tax. 4.    Considerations for drafting sponsorship agreements As mentioned above, since the income tax (withholding tax) and consumption tax consequences could vary greatly depending on the contents of the sponsorship agreement, it is necessary to accurately analyze the tax implications and reflect them in the agreement.  With regard to withholding tax, it is necessary to consider whether to include in the agreement provisions related to withholding, or, at the outset, gross-up provisions (see Income Tax Basic Circular 181-223 Kyo-4).  With regard to consumption tax, it is necessary to clearly indicate whether or not the agreed sponsorship fees include the amount of consumption tax if the fees are subject to consumption tax in Japan.  In addition, if the services or rights provided by the athlete include those that are subject to tax and those that are not, one option may be to classify the sponsorship fees according to the services or rights in order to clarify the tax consequences. 5.   Conclusion Since the taxation of a sponsorship agreement can vary depending on the parties to and the contents of the agreement, it is necessary to accurately understand the tax implications and to draft an appropriate agreement that is in line with such understanding.  We hope this newsletter will be of some help in this regard. February 14, 2025 View original article here. Author: Tsutomu Endo Footnotes [1] The descriptions in this chapter mainly rely on Shiro Kato, “Basic Knowledge And Contract Practices Of Sports Sponsorship” (Chuokeizai-sha, 2023) (hereinafter “Kato Bibliography”).  This book provides a detailed explanation of the fundamentals of sports sponsorships, legal relationships and contractual practices. [2] For example, Article 16(1) of the US-Japan tax treaty.  However, said paragraph provides that the athlete would be exempt from taxation if the amount of the gross receipts derived by the athlete does not exceed USD 10,000 for the taxable year concerned.  Paragraph 9 of the Commentary on Article 17 of the OECD Model Tax Convention explains that, if an athlete wears a uniform with a sponsor’s logo during a competition, the athlete would fall under the scope of said provision. [3] The decision issued by the Tokyo District Court on October 13, 2010 was for a case related to the sponsorship fees for a car race.  In this case, the court ruled that the office, etc. involved in the provision of the services was a domestic office, and therefore, the transaction was a domestic transaction and subject to consumption tax. [4] Kato Bibliography, p. 73. [5] Yutaka Karigome, “Tax Accountant Practices Q&A Second Opinion No. 29 Consumption Tax: Determination of Domestic and Foreign Transaction Sponsorship Fees Related to Professional Athletes,” Zeimu-Tsushin No. 3790, p. 21. [6] Paragraph 9.1 of the Commentary on Article 17 of the OECD Model Tax Convention states that “[t] he reference to an ‘entertainer or sportsman’ includes anyone who acts as such, even for a single event.”  Based on this commentary, athletes should also be considered to be “entertainers” in relation to advertising appearances.  In this regard, although it is related to consumption tax, the same interpretation is also given on page 35 of the “Q&A on Taxation of Consumption Tax on Cross-border Provision of Services (May 2015) (revised July 2024)” published by the National Tax Agency (https://www.nta.go.jp/publication/pamph/pdf/cross- QA.pdf; hereinafter referred to as the “NTA Q&A”). [7] Although this circular directly applies to income related to business for the provision of personal services under Article 161(1)(vi), it should also be considered to apply to fees for the provision of personal services under Article 161(1)(xii)(a) (see also Morito Yanagisawa (ed.), “2024 Edition: Q&A Withholding Income Tax Practices” (Seibun-sha, 2024), p. 754). [8] NTA Q&A, p. 35. [9] However, if the taxable sales ratio for that taxable period is 95% or more, the sponsor would not be obligated to file a tax return and pay consumption tax due to the application of the reverse charge mechanism (Articles 42 and 44(2) of the Supplementary Provisions of the 2015 Amendment Act).
20 February 2025

Recent Court Decision on (i) Scope of Medicinal Use Invention and (ii) Patent Linkage

1.          Introduction In the field of pharmaceutical patents, a system known as “patent linkage” is introduced in numerous countries, and Japan is no exception.In general, the patent linkage system, in which regulatory authorities consider potential infringement of patents covering brand-name drugs during the approval process of their follow-on drugs (i.e., generics or biosimilars), helps prevent patent infringement disputes from occurring after the sale of follow-on drugs. Therefore, it is considered reasonable from the perspective of patent holders, as it efficiently protects their patent rights, and from the perspective of follow-on drug manufacturers, medical institutions and patients, as it ensures a stable supply of follow-on drugs. However, the specific design and actual implementation of the system vary depending on the country. A key feature of the Japanese system is that it is not governed by law, and thus there is no expectation of obtaining a court judgement during the approval process. Instead, it is practically operated in accordance with an administrative notice (the “Two Directors’ Notice”)[1] issued by directors of Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (the “MHLW”). The MHLW reviews the relevant patents covering the brand-name drug based on the information provided by the brand-name drug manufacturers or patentees in a “drug patent information report sheet,” which is not generally made public. If the MHLW believes that the follow-on drug would infringe the patents, it does not issue marketing authorization for the follow-on drugs. The Tokyo District Court issued a decision on October 28, 2024 in a case involving a biosimilar manufacturer seeking a preliminary injunction against a patent holder (Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. v Bayer HealthCare LLC. (Case Number: 2024 (Yo) 30029, hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Case”). This decision addresses (i) the scope of protection for a medicinal use invention specified by its use for a specific group of patients, and (ii) whether a statement made by the patent holder to the MHLW regarding potential infringement during the patent linkage process may constitute “unfair competition” as defined in the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (the “UCPA”). In this newsletter, we provide an overview of the court’s ruling. 2.          Outline of the Subject Case Bayer HealthCare LLC. (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”) owns the Japanese Patent No. 7320919 titled “Treatment of age-related macular degeneration with a small active choroidal neovascularization lesion” (hereinafter referred to as the “Patent”), which was registered on July 27, 2023. Claim 1 of the Patent covers a pharmaceutical composition comprising aflibercept, as a VEGF inhibitor, for use in the treatment of a certain group of wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) patients (hereinafter referred to as the “Certain Patients Group”). Bayer Yakuhin, Ltd, an affiliate of the Respondent, started selling “EYLEA® solution for IVT inj. 40mg/mL” (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent’s Product”) in November 2012. On the other hand, Global Regulatory Partners GK (hereinafter referred to as the “GRP”) filed a marketing authorization application for a biosimilar correspondent to the Respondent’s Product (hereinafter referred to as the “Claimant’s Product”) on May 31, 2023. The Claimant’s Product was to be produced by Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Claimant”). According to the draft package insert of the Claimant’s Product which was submitted by GRP, “age-related macular degeneration with choroidal neovascularization in the subfoveal area”, which falls under wAMD, is included in the “indications and usage” of the Claimant’s Product. While GRP excluded wAMD from the “indications and usage” of the Claimant’s Product based on MHLW’s comments on November 9, 2023, there had been a meeting prior to that regarding GRP’s application, involving the Claimant, GRP and the MHLW. As the MHLW referred to the Respondent’s opinion in the meeting, the Claimant asked the MHLW for details of the opinion. The MHLW responded by email, stating that the Respondent had provided a general opinion that if a marketing authorization for a biosimilar correspondent to Eylea is issued and the biosimilar is marketed, it would constitute an infringement of the Patent, in response to the MHLW’s inquiry (The series of information-providing activities by the Respondent to the MHLW and the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA)[2] are referred to as the “Statements.”). The Claimant filed an application for a preliminary injunction with the Tokyo District Court, seeking to enjoin the Respondent from notifying the MHLW or the PMDA that the Claimant’s Product infringes the Patent. The Claimant argued that the Statements constitute unfair competition as set forth in Article 2(1)(xxi) of the UCPA, and that the Claimant’s business interests have been harmed by such unfair competition. Article 2(1)(xxi) of the UCPA stipulates that an act of making or disseminating false statement that harms the business credibility of a business competitor constitutes unfair competition. In practice, if a statement is made to a third party claiming that a competitor infringes a patent, and a court later rules that the patent is not infringed, such a statement is considered a “false statement.” The third party to whom the statement is made is typically a customer of the competitor, but in recent years, there have been cases where the reporting of infringement of intellectual property rights to an operator of a digital platform, such as an e-commerce site or SNS, has been disputed as a false statement. 3.          Decision of the Court The court rendered a decision dismissing the application for preliminary injunction on 28 October 2024 based in the following judgement. 3-1. Whether a statement made by the patent holder to the MHLW during the patent linkage process may constitute “unfair competition” under the UCPA The court in charge of the Subject Case (hereinafter referred to as the “Court”) acknowledged that a “drug patent information report sheet” is submitted voluntarily by the patent holder or the manufacturer of the brand-name drug as internal documentation for the MHLW and the PMDA, and that there are no particular restrictions on the content of the report, so stating their own opinion on whether or not the generic drug infringes the patent covering the brand-name drug is not prevented. The Court further acknowledged that, if a statement made by the patent holder to the MHLW regarding potential infringement during the patent linkage process is considered unfair competition in a case where a court later rules that the patent is not infringed, the patent holder would not be able to sufficiently state its opinion in the “drug patent information report sheet.” Additionally, the Court pointed out that it is clear that patent linkage does not allow the patent holder of the brand-name drug to provide arbitrary information nor grant them broad exemption, since the purpose of patent linkage is to ensure a stable supply of follow-on drugs by considering whether the follow-on drug infringes the patent covering the brand-name drug during the approval process. Based on this balance of interests, the Court indicated that the provision of false information constitutes unfair competition when it is made in order to place the applicant for marketing authorization of the follow-on drug in an unfavorable position and put the provider in a competitively advantageous position. In other words, while it is not immediately illegal to provide an opinion that the follow-on drug infringes the patent covering the brand-name drug, even if such opinion is later denied in a court decision, the provision of such an opinion can be regarded as unfair competition under the UCPA in cases where there are “special circumstances” that are recognized as being significantly lacking in reasonableness in light of the purpose of the patent linkage system. The Court then proceeded to determine whether the Statements made by the Respondent were false. 3-2. Scope of protection for a medicinal use invention specified by its use for a specific group of patients As mentioned in section 2 above, claim 1 of the Patent covers a pharmaceutical composition for use in the treatment of a specific group of patients. Some recent medicinal use inventions are defined not only by a disease but also by a specific group of patients having the disease, specified by conditions such as specific symptoms. A “use invention” is understood as an invention characterized by the discovery of unknown properties in a known substance and the creation of a new application with remarkable effects based on those properties. It is generally understood that a patent covering a use invention is infringed only when the known substance is produced, used, sold, etc., for use in the new application. To determine whether the known substance is produced, etc., for use in the new application, courts examine whether there is a circumstance where it is objectively recognizable that the product is intended for the new, patented application, such as by attaching a label to the product indicating the application. In the case of a medicinal use invention, whether the known substance is produced, etc., for use in the new application is generally determined by the information provided by the drug manufacturer, such as the contents of the package insert or the “interview form[3].” In the Subject Case, the Court clarified that the patented invention is characterized by the discovery of unknown properties, specifically that the known VEGF inhibitor exhibits a better therapeutic effect in a specific group of wAMD patients (i.e., the Certain Patients Group) than in other wAMD patients, even though it had been known to be effective in the latter group. The Court then stated that the Patent is infringed when the VEGF inhibitor is produced, used, sold, etc., exclusively for administration to the Certain Patients Group. The Court proceeded to apply the criterion to the Subject Case. The Court found that the draft package insert of the Claimant’s Product does not mention the Certain Patients Group in either the “indications and usage” or “dosage and administration” sections, nor does it mention that the drug exhibits a remarkable effect when administered to the Certain Patients Group. Based on the above, the Court found that the application for marketing authorization for the Claimant’s Product was not made for administration to the Certain Patients Group as recited in the claim, and that there were no special circumstances indicating the probability of the Claimant’s Product being sold for a use other than those described in the application for marketing authorization. The Court additionally stated that, since the Respondent’s Products had been sold and administered to the Certain Patients Group prior to the priority date, the patented invention was publicly used prior to the priority date, and therefore, the Patent should be invalidated. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Claimant’s Product does not infringe the Patent and that the Statements stating that the Claimant’s Product would infringe the Patent were false. 3-3. Whether there were any special circumstances that were recognized as being significantly lacking in reasonableness in light of the purpose of the patent linkage system Since the Court concluded that the Statements were false, the Court proceeded to determine whether there were “special circumstances” that were recognized as being significantly lacking in reasonableness in light of the purpose of the patent linkage system. In determining whether there were such “special circumstances,” the Court pointed out the following factors: The Respondent’s view that the Claimant’s Product infringes the Patent on the grounds that the patients to whom the Claimant’s Product is administered include the Certain Patients Group is not apparently contrary to existing Supreme Court precedents. The Respondent argues that, while the marketing of the Respondent’s Products prior to the priority date does not constitute public use, the marketing of the Claimant’s Product constitutes infringement of the Patent due to changes in common general knowledge after the priority date. It could not be said that such an argument was immediately unreasonable because the determination of such common general knowledge would be a core issue in determining whether the Patent is infringed, and a full trial is necessary to determine such common general knowledge. There were no judicial precedents addressing whether the provision of information by the brand-name drug manufacturer or patent holder during the patent linkage process constitutes unfair competition under the UCPA. Parallel infringement lawsuits have been filed in various countries, and the Subject Case is a part of the global dispute, so it was unavoidable for the Respondent to respond that the Patent would be infringed when inquired by the MHLW and the PMDA. Based on these factors, the Court held that there were no “special circumstances” that were recognized as being significantly lacking in reasonableness in light of the purpose of the patent linkage system, and concluded that the Statements does not constitute unfair competition. 4.          Comments This decision is the first court ruling to address either of the two issues: (i) the scope of protection for a medicinal use invention specified by its use for a specific group of patients, and (ii) whether a statement made by the patent holder to the MHLW regarding potential infringement during the patent linkage process may constitute “unfair competition” as defined in the UCPA. Therefore, this decision is significant. On the other hand, this is a decision by a court of first instance made in a preliminary injunction proceeding, and a later court may apply a different legal standard. We will provide an update if there is any material progress.   View original article here. Author: Kenji Tosaki and Nozomi Kato Footnotes [1] The Two Directors’ Notice states that the MHLW considers not only substance patents but also use patents (i.e., patents for use inventions), and that if there is a patent covering a part of the “indications and usage” and “dosage and administration” of a brand-name drug, and it is possible to manufacture a follow-on drug with “indications and usage” or “dosage and administration” not covered by the patent, the follow-on drug can be approved, except for the “indications and usage” or “dosage and administration” covered by the patent (a practice known as “skinny labeling”). [2] The PMDA is an agency that conducts the scientific review of marketing authorization applications. [3] An interview form is a document containing detailed information about a drug, prepared by the company that obtained marketing authorization for the drug, to supplement the package insert.
13 February 2025
Press Releases

Announcing New Partners and Counsel of NO&T

Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (“NO&T”) is pleased to announce its new partners and counsel as of January 1, 2025, as follows: Partners Yoichi Maekawa, Takehito Matsumoto, Hiroki Tajima, Yusei Uji, Ryuji Oka, Tsubasa Watanabe and Oki Osawa Counsel Yukiko Konno, Hiroaki Tsubaki, Akira Komatsu, Teruyoshi Takahashi, Takeshi Hayakawa, Emi Fujisaki, Saori Kawai and Ryuhei Itaya We will continue to dedicate ourselves to providing high quality legal services to our clients. Your continued support will be greatly appreciated. View original article here.
10 February 2025
Press Releases

Announcement of Establishment of NO&T Data Lab and Conclusion of a Collaborative Agreement with the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies of Law and Policy at the Graduate School of Law, Kyoto University

Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (Location: Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo; Managing Partner: Soichiro Fujiwara; “NO&T”) established NO&T Data Lab Co., Ltd. (“NO&T Data Lab”) in November 2024. This entity was established to provide enhanced advisory services in the fields of governance and compliance by integrating insights from related disciplines such as economics, business management, psychology, and data analysis. NO&T Data Lab will also support corporate initiatives aimed at organizational culture reform and evaluating the effectiveness of related measures. In December 2024, NO&T also entered into a comprehensive collaboration agreement with the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies of Law and Policy at the Graduate School of Law, Kyoto University, which shares NO&T Data Lab’s commitment to cutting-edge initiatives. The agreement covers joint research and related cooperative activities. In order to commemorate the establishment of NO&T Data Lab and the conclusion of the collaboration agreement, we are pleased to announce that we will hold a symposium, as detailed below.   View original article here.
10 February 2025

Legal Issues Related to Branded Residences with Some Recent Updates on Relevant Laws

I.Introduction Recently, in domestic and international real estate development projects targeting wealthy individuals, developers are increasingly engaging in mixed developments that incorporate branded residences (residences branded with luxury hotel names) centered in major domestic cities and resort areas. These branded residences can expect unit sales to reflect a premium associated with the hotel brand, allowing developers to anticipate early and high return of funds. For purchasers, in addition to comprehensive hotel services, there are benefits such as maintaining and improving asset value through the brand and obtaining income opportunities through rental programs (as discussed below). It is expected that branded residence development will accelerate with the increase in the number of domestic and international wealthy individuals. Although branded residence development is increasing year by year, there are cases with legal ambiguities from a Japanese law perspective. Accordingly, I would like to briefly describe some typical legal issues with introducing recent updates on relevant laws. II.          Act on Building Unit Ownership, etc. (“Unit Ownership Act”) The Unit Ownership Act is relevant to branded residence development in many respects. One particularly important issue concerns how to secure management and operation in compliance with the hotel’s brand standards in a branded residence where multiple unit owners are involved following the sales of the units. It should be noted that the management association established under the Unit Ownership Act differs from the homeowner’s association in the U.S. or a similar association in other major foreign countries, and therefore management and operation matters in Japan cannot be structured in the same way as solutions to these matters in those foreign countries. (i)                Common Area Management In “majority type” ownership, where the developer continues to hold more than half of the voting rights in the management association, the developer can continue to have control over common area management through the following methods: a. Specifying in the management bylaws that the developer itself or its affiliated companies shall be the managers, and that common areas will be managed by the manager. b. Setting necessary restrictions on the use of common areas in the management bylaws. Since the management bylaws are binding on unit successors under the Unit Ownership Act, stipulating matters necessary for maintaining the hotel brand standards in the management bylaws will be helpful for stable management and operation. c. Ensuring that purchasers cannot change the bylaws contrary to the developer’s intentions, as the developer holds the majority of voting rights. Thus, purchasers cannot abolish or modify the manager’s provisions or common area usage restrictions. In addition, the developer can pass ordinary resolutions (such as an annual budget approval) without purchasers’ cooperation, and this mechanism contributes to the smooth operation of branded residences. On the other hand, if the developer’s voting percentage after unit sales is less than a majority, while the developer will have veto rights regarding management bylaw changes, the developer cannot pass ordinary resolutions with only its own affirmative votes (as it could were it the majority owner), so cooperation from purchasers will be essential for operations such as budget approval. In cases where the developer’s voting percentage falls below 25% after sales, management bylaw changes contrary to the developer’s intentions become theoretically possible, and there is a risk of abolishing provisions regarding manager selection and their authorities. While it may be possible to include provisions in contracts between individual purchasers and the developer or operator that they should not agree to any management bylaw changes, the validity and enforceability of such provisions remain unclear. (ii)              Restrictions on Exclusive Area Usage The use of exclusive areas under a rental program does not necessarily present issues on management. In a rental program, a purchaser allows a hotel operator to use its exclusive area in exchange for compensation. Under these programs, exclusive areas will be used and managed exclusively by the hotel operator based on contracts with each purchaser (lease agreements or management contracts), and accordingly it would not be necessary to impose restrictions on exclusive area usage by each unit owner. When rental program participation is optional, exclusive areas can be freely used by purchasers. In branded residences, restrictions on usage of exclusive areas may be necessary from the perspective of maintaining uniformity and aesthetic appearance, particularly regarding decorations affecting the exterior, and it will be important to determine whether such restrictions can be established in the management bylaws. (iii)             Manager The manager preserves common areas, executes unit owner’s meeting decisions, and has rights to perform actions defined in the management bylaws. The manager’s actions are effective for all unit owners, and the manager has the ability to represent unit owners in matters related to their duties. The manager also has the right to convene unit owner’s meeting and is typically the chair. Managers need not be owners and can be corporate entities. Selecting hotel operators or developer-affiliated companies as a manager and stipulating this selection in the management bylaws can contribute to establishing a stable structure that prevents manager replacement by the purchasers. (iv)             Unit Ownership Act Amendments Recently, amendments to the Unit Ownership Act have been under discussion. The “Outline Proposal Regarding Unit Ownership Act Revisions” published on January 16, 2024, includes: (i) a proposed mechanism allowing majority decisions by attendees (excluding non-attending owners from the quorum) and (ii) the introduction of a domestic representative for overseas owners. Both appear to contribute to smooth branded residence operations, but it will be important to monitor any further developments with respect to the contemplated amendments. III.         Recent Updates on Natural Parks Act In recent years, in response to the rising needs for condominium-type hotel developments, the Natural Parks Act Enforcement Regulations have been amended to allow the competent authorities issue approval on a condominium-type hotel development as a national park project under certain conditions. The approval requirements include the following: a. Not establishing rooms for exclusive use by specific individuals, and ensuring that 70% or more of the total annual guest room nights are available for general use; and b. Setting up a fixed-term land lease corresponding to the depreciation period of the hotel building, or implementing measures expected to facilitate large-scale renovations or rebuilding of the hotel. IV.         Act on Specified Joint Real Estate Ventures and Financial Instruments and Exchange Act The Act on Specified Joint Real Estate Ventures and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act both restrict certain collective investment schemes. Relevant to our considerations in this newsletter is whether rental programs, which have the character of collective investment in that the revenue generated by the hotel is received by each unit owner, are subject to the terms and restrictions of these laws. There is no established, consensus view as to this matter, which requires careful consideration on a case-by-case basis. View original article here. Author: Takahiro Kitagawa
15 January 2025

Amendments to the Tender Offer Regulations

I. Introduction The tender offer regulations in Japan were introduced in 1971, and have not been the subject of significant amendment since 2006.Recently, however, there have been efforts to enhance the fairness and transparency of the market, in response to environmental changes in capital markets. In this regard, the working group established by the Financial Services Agency (the “FSA”) released a Working Group Report regarding the Tender Offer and Large Shareholding Reporting System (the “FSA Report”) on December 25, 2023. In the FSA Report, the working group pointed out issues concerning the current tender offer regulations and suggested a number of amendments thereto. In light of the suggestions in the FSA Report, the amendments (the “Amendments”) to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (the “FIEA”) were proposed and passed by the Diet on May 15, 2024. The Amendments may have a material impact on the practice of the tender offer regulations. The Amendments related to the tender offer regulations will be effective within two years from the date of their announcement. It should be noted that while the detailed rules of the tender offer regulations are prescribed in the FIEA enforcement order (the “Enforcement Orders”) and the Cabinet office ordinances related thereto (the “Cabinet Office Ordinances”), the proposed amendments of the Enforcement Orders and Cabinet Office Ordinances are being discussed and will be released before the effective date of the Amendments. II.          Overview of the Amendments (i)                Expansion of Regulated Transactions (Applicable to On-Market Transactions) In Japan, an acquisition of listed shares which materially affects the control of the target company necessitates the implementation of a tender offer in compliance with the procedures set forth in the FIEA (the “Mandatory Tender Offer”). Under the current tender offer regime, as a general rule, the Mandatory Tender Offer applies to (a) off-market transactions involving a large number of persons (more than ten persons within a 61-day period), resulting in the acquirer’s ownership ratio exceeding 5% (the “5% Rule”); and (b) either off-market transactions (whether involving a small or large number of persons) or on-market transactions (off-floor transactions) that result in the acquirer’s ownership ratio exceeding one-third (1/3) (the “1/3 Rule”). In contrast, on-market transactions (on-floor transactions) have not been subject to either the 5% Rule or the 1/3 Rule, based on the premise that such transactions inherently ensure transparency and fairness. In recent years, however, there have been instances where more than one-third of company’s shares have been acquired within a relatively short period through on-market transactions (on-floor transactions), and this has led to an increasing calls for the application of the 1/3 Rules to on-market transactions (on-floor transactions), in order to ensure that shareholders are provided with adequate information and time to assess and make informed investment decisions regarding such transactions. In response to these concerns, the Amendments have introduced the application of the 1/3 Rule to on-market transactions (on-floor transactions), thereby extending the scope of the Mandatory Tender Offer to such transactions. (ii)              Lowered Threshold (1/3 to 30%) As noted above, under the current tender offer regime, the Mandatory Tender Offer applies to off-market transactions (whether involving a small or large number of persons) that result in the acquirer’s ownership ratio exceeding 1/3. This threshold is understood to reflect the percentage of voting rights that can veto special resolutions (i.e., requiring two-thirds (2/3) of the total voting rights exercised) at a general meeting of shareholders, which could materially affect the control of the company. However, (a) based on the percentage of voting rights typically exercised by shareholders in Japanese listed companies, voting rights of 30% is generally sufficient to block a special resolution, and in certain cases, may also significantly influence the outcome of an ordinary resolution (requiring a majority vote) at a general meeting of shareholders; and (b) in most foreign jurisdictions, the mandatory tender offer threshold is set at 30%. In light of these considerations, the threshold of the 1/3 Rule has been lowered to 30% under the Amendment. Illustrating the above, the newly regulated areas are shown in red below.   (iii)             Elimination of “Rapid Acquisition” Rule Under the current tender offer regime, there exists a “rapid acquisition” rule, which mandates that a tender offer be conducted for acquisitions that meet the following requirements. A) Acquisitions of more than 10% of the company’s shares (regardless of type of transaction, including new shares subscriptions, on-market transactions (on-floor transaction), tender offers or exempted purchases) within a three-month period; B) Which acquisitions include more than 5% of the company’s shares through off-market transactions or on-market transactions (off-floor transactions), excluding tender offers and exempt purchases; and C) In which the acquirer’s ownership ratio exceeds one-third (1/3) of the shares following such acquisitions. The purpose of the “rapid acquisition” rule is to prohibit the combination of transactions that would be subject to the Mandatory Tender Offer if they exceeded the one-third threshold (see requirement B) above) with transactions that would not be subject to Mandatory Tender Offer regardless of whether they exceeded the one-third threshold (see requirement A) above), thereby preventing circumvention of the 1/3 Rule (see requirement C) above). Under the “rapid acquisition” rule, the combination of transactions, such as the acquisition of up to 32% of the shares off-market followed by the acquisition of an additional 2% through on-market transactions (on-floor transactions), is prohibited. The original purpose of the “rapid acquisition” rule was to prevent circumvention of the 1/3 Rule, primarily through a combination with on-market transactions (on-floor transactions). However, if on-market transactions (on-floor transaction) become subject to the Mandatory Tender Offer as described in (i) above, such transactions will be prohibited regardless of whether or not the “rapid acquisition” rule exists. Consequently, the legislator has decided to officially eliminate the “rapid acquisition” rule through the Amendments. However, there is an effect of the elimination of the “rapid acquisition” rule over and above its obviation by the increase in scope of the Mandatory Tender Offer. For example, the following scenarios will be permissible if the rule is eliminated: (a) after acquiring 29% of a company’s shares from a major shareholder in an off-market transaction, the acquirer could then make a tender offer to acquire additional shares, resulting in a post-acquisition ownership exceeding 30%; (b) similarly, after acquiring 29% of the shares in an off-market transaction, the acquirer could make an offer to purchase additional shares through an exempted purchase, typically from a party with which the acquirer has had a “formal special relationship” (keishikiteki-tokubetukankeisha; e.g., affiliates) for more than one year. While the elimination of the “rapid acquisition” rule would enable certain combinations of transactions that were prohibited under the current tender offer regulations, combinations of transactions may require a case-by-case analysis to avoid being deemed an attempt to circumvent the tender offer regulations even though the “rapid acquisition” rule is eliminated. III.         Conclusion In addition to the above, the Amendments include material changes which would have impact on the practice of the tender offer; however, it should be noted that the details of the Amendments will be clarified in the upcoming amendments to the Enforcement Orders and Cabinet Office Ordinances. We recommend keeping an eye on developments with respect to these further amendments to the related orders and regulations, as well as changes to tender offer practices. View original article here. Author: Yu Tamura
13 January 2025
Press Releases

NO&T Hosts Reception Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of its Bangkok Office

On November 6, 2024, Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (NO&T) hosted a reception in Bangkok to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the opening of its Bangkok office. The event was attended by distinguished guests, including Mr. Masato Otaka, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Kingdom of Thailand, and representatives from Japanese and local companies. NO&T was represented by lawyers from our Bangkok office together with lawyers from our Tokyo office and other overseas offices and locations. Moving forward, our Bangkok office will continue to expand our range of services to provide comprehensive, one-stop solutions, supporting our clients’ business development more efficiently and promptly. Our Bangkok-based lawyers are well-positioned to provide legal services directly and locally, in collaboration with our Tokyo office and other offices and locations in Asia, and to support our clients with responsive and tailored legal services. View original article here.  
26 November 2024
Press Releases

NO&T Hosts Reception Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of its Ho Chi Minh City Office

On November 8, 2024, Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (NO&T) hosted a reception in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the opening of its HCMC office. The event was attended by distinguished guests, including Mr. Masuo Ono, Consul-General, Consulate-General of Japan in Ho Chi Minh City, and representatives from Japanese and local companies. NO&T was represented by lawyers from our HCMC office together with lawyers from our Tokyo office and other offices and locations in Asia. Since its establishment in June 2014, our HCMC office has steadily expanded its operations and team size. Specializing in corporate legal services, primarily focusing on mergers and acquisitions as well as real estate and infrastructure development projects, it has grown to become one of the largest law firms in Vietnam. Moving forward, our HCMC office will continue to expand our range of services to provide comprehensive, one-stop solutions with the aim of supporting our clients’ business development more efficiently and promptly. Our HCMC-based lawyers are well-positioned to provide legal services directly and locally, in collaboration with our Tokyo office and other offices and locations in Asia, and to support our clients with responsive and tailored legal services. View original article here.  
19 November 2024

IP Licensing and Insolvency - Recent Developments in the Protection of Licensees and Remaining Issues under Japanese Law

I.           Introduction For a licensee, the sudden termination of an IP license agreement, whether in whole or in part, can be tantamount to a withdrawal from the licensee's business. Therefore, it is advisable to carefully review the terms of the agreement and make sure that everything is in place to prevent such a situation from occurring. However, over the relatively long term of an IP license agreement the licensor's financial situation may change over time, and it is possible that insolvency proceedings may be initiated against the licensor. Prior to the series of amendments to the Japanese intellectual property laws described below, IP license agreements were often subject to termination upon the commencement of insolvency proceedings, and IP license agreements were unstable in that they could be suddenly terminated by the trustee. Over the past decade, there have been vigorous debates about strengthening licensee protections in the above context, and the Patent Act was amended in 2011 (the “2011 Amendment”)[1] and the Copyright Act was amended in 2020 (the “2020 Amendment”). At the same time, however, some important issues remain unresolved. In addition, a report published in March 2023 by the Advisory Council of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (the “Report”)[2] concluded that no amendment will be made to the law on trade secrets for the time being. This newsletter provides an overview of these key topics, with a focus on the bankruptcy of the licensor[3]. II.          Protection of Licensee (i)                General Rule - Trustee’s right to cancel under Bankruptcy Act Article 53(1) of the Bankruptcy Act provides that if both the bankrupt party and the counterparty under a bilateral contract have not yet fully performed their respective obligations at the time of the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings, the bankruptcy trustee may choose either to cancel the contract or to perform its obligation. However, Article 53(1) does not apply to the extent that (a) the contract grants a leasehold right or any other right of use or exploitation and (b) the counterparty has a registration or satisfies any other requirements enabling it to duly assert and enforce such right against any third party (Article 56(1) of the Bankruptcy Act). Prior to the 2011 Amendment, the only way to satisfy this requirement with respect to industrial property rights, which become effective upon registration with the Japan Patent Office (the “JPO”), was to register the license with the JPO. However, under Japanese practice, the number of registered licenses was extremely limited. In addition, there was no such system for registering copyright licenses, so this requirement could not be met with respect to copyright licenses. (ii)              Patents[4], Copyrights and Trademarks The 2011 Amendment introduced a new rule that enables a patent licensee to assert and enforce an ordinary license[5] not registered with the JPO against any third party that acquired the licensed patent after the grant of the license (Art. 99 of the Patent Act). With effect from October 1 2020, similar amendment has been introduced to the Copyright Act so that a copyright licensee may assert and enforce a copyright license against any third party that acquired the licensed copyright after the grant of the license. Following these amendments, a licensee of a patent or a copyright is always entitled to assert and enforce such license against any such third party, and therefore, such license agreement will continue even in the event of the licensor’s bankruptcy as the licensor’s trustee is no longer able to cancel such license agreement. The 2011 Amendment could have introduced the same rule for trademark licenses. However, the government decided not to amend the Trademark Act in view of the important differences between patent licenses and trademark licenses, for example, a trademark license imposes more material restrictions on a third party who acquires the licensed trademark without being aware of the existence of such license than does a patent license, because the trademark may no longer function as an indication of origin and quality if the existing licensee uses the trademark. Thus, the importance of registering trademark licenses remains unchanged in the context of the licensor’s bankruptcy. (iii)             Trade Secrets Under Japanese law, trade secrets (e.g., know-how) may enjoy legal protection if they meet certain requirements, such as being kept secret. Similar to copyrights prior to the Amendment 2020, there has been no system for registering trade secret licenses with the JPO, and in the event of the licensor's bankruptcy, the trustee may cancel trade secret license agreements. The protection of trade secret licensees had been discussed in recent years taking into account the different nature of trade secrets compared to other IP rights[6], and the Report was issued in March 2023. The Report concluded that no amendments to the Unfair Competition Prevention Act should be made for the time being, and that the review should continue. One of the reasons given by the Advisory Council for not amending at this time is that "there have been no actual disputes that have come to light so far", and in practice the risk to licensees does not appear to be high. However, in the interim report issued prior to the Report, the Advisory Council's discussions suggested that if the licensor goes bankrupt and the trustee terminates the license agreement, then the licensee loses the right to use the trade secret thereafter, and thus in many cases it would be considered that the requirements for an infringement of a trade secret under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act have been met. For companies operating on the basis of a trade secret license, especially in the case of manufacturing, which often involves a huge investment in manufacturing facilities that use the licensed trade secret, it must be said that this would leave uncertainty in their business. III.         Remaining Issues - rights and obligations other than the ordinary license As discussed above, the trustee cannot terminate the most types of IP license agreements, but it would still be possible for the trustee to transfer the licensed IP to a third party for the purpose of liquidation. Even in this case, the licensee may assert and enforce the ordinary license against the assignee, but whether the license agreement (i.e., the rights and obligations other than the ordinary license under the IP license agreement) is succeeded by the third party is a separate issue. Except in cases where an exclusive registered license is granted, this issue concerns, for example, the exclusivity of the license and the right to sublicense, which are only contractual rights and obligations agreed upon with respect to an ordinary license. As a general principle, the Civil Code provides that contractual rights and obligations may not be transferred to a third party in the absence of an agreement between the parties concerned (except where there is a general succession by operation of law), while case law on real estate leases provides that when ownership of a leasehold estate is transferred from a lessor to a third party, the third party automatically assumes the lease agreement between the lessor and the lessee (including all rights and obligations thereunder) if the lessee is entitled to assert and enforce its leasehold right against the third party. Whether the general principle or the case law (or any other special rule) applies to IP licenses had been debated, however, both the 2011 Amendment and the 2020 Amendment took the position of leaving it to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis‒to date, no court in Japan has had the opportunity to provide any further guidance on this issue. Since the law does not provide clear rules as to whether such a third party assumes all contractual obligations under a license agreement, from a practical point of view, new IP owners and existing licensees are expected to negotiate and agree upon the terms of a licensing arrangement following the acquisition of licensed IP. However, from a licensee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that, if such negotiations fail, the worst case scenario is that exclusivity and a sublicensing right will be treated as follows: (i) exclusivity – the new IP owner does not assume the obligation and may grant licenses to other parties; and (ii) sublicensing right – the new IP owner does not assume the obligation and the licensee is no longer entitled to grant new sublicenses, provided that the new IP owner must assume all sublicenses granted to the sublicensees prior to its acquisition of the licensed IP because such sublicensees are entitled to assert and enforce their ordinary licenses against any third party that acquires the licensed IP after the grant of such license (i.e., the new IP owner) as discussed in II. above. IV.         Conclusion While the series of amendments to Japanese intellectual property laws can clearly be seen as having successfully strengthened the protection of licensees, there are still some issues and uncertainties for licensees as discussed above. Since they cannot be directly addressed by contractual provisions, there are still situations where certain practical arrangements for licensees are necessary, such as operational measures to ensure that the licensor's financial situation is monitored in a timely manner and contractual clauses allowing certain actions to be taken prior to the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. View original article here. Author: Atsushi Yamaguchi Footnotes [1] The same amendments were also made to the Utility Model Act and the Design Act. [2] Designing the Unfair Competition Prevention Act in view of the diversification of business resulting from digitalization (March 2023) (Japanese only) [3] Japanese law provides for four types of insolvency proceedings: bankruptcy proceedings, civil rehabilitation proceedings, corporate reorganization proceedings, and special liquidation proceedings. [4] The same licensee protection was adopted under the Utility Model Act and the Design Act when these Acts were amended in 2011. [5] The Patent Act provides for two types of patent licenses: (i) a registered exclusive license (senyo-jisshiken); and (ii) an exclusive/non-exclusive ordinary license (tsujo-jisshiken). Since the former becomes effective upon registration with the JPO, before the 2011 Amendment the former is always protected from such cancellation by a trustee. [6] The scope of trade secret protection is limited. For example, a trade secret holder is entitled to prohibit a third party from using the trade secret only if such use constitutes a violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, such as use “for the purpose of wrongful gain, or causing damage to the trade secret holder” (see Art. 2(1)(vii) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act). This means that in some cases a purchaser of the licensed trade secrets may not be able to prevent the licensee from cotinuing to use the trade secrets.
06 November 2024

Amendments to the Large Shareholding Reporting System

I. Introduction The large shareholding reporting system in Japan (the “Large Shareholding Reporting System”) was introduced in 1990, and has not been the subject of significant amendment since 2006. However, in response to environmental changes in capital markets and enhancement of the fairness and transparency of the market, on December 25, 2023, the working group established by the Financial Services Agency (the “FSA”) has released a Working Group Report regarding the Tender Offer and Large Shareholding Reporting System (the “FSA Report”) in which the working group pointed out issues concerning the current tender offer and the Large Shareholding Reporting System and suggested some amendments thereto. In light of the suggestions in the FSA Report, the amendments (the “Amendments”) to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (the “FIEA”) were proposed and passed by the Diet on May 15, 2024. Since the Amendments may have a material impact on the practice of the Large Shareholding Reporting System, we are introducing an outline of these Amendments in this newsletter, as well as a recent enforcement case brought against a failure to submit a large shareholding report. The Amendments related to the Large Shareholding Reporting System will be effective within two years from the date of their announcement. It should be noted that while the detailed rules of the Reporting System are prescribed in the FIEA enforcement order (the “Enforcement Orders”) and the Cabinet office ordinances related thereto (the “Cabinet Office Ordinances”), the proposed amendments of the Enforcement Orders and Cabinet Office Ordinances are being discussed and will be released before the effective date of the Amendments. II.          Overview of the Amendments (i)                Scope of the “Material Proposals” (Juyo-teian-koui) Since institutional investors repeatedly and continuously sell and purchase stock certificates (including shares in a listed company and defined in the FIEA) in the course of their day-to-day operations, the FIEA allows such institutional investors to use a special reporting system, in which the rules on the frequency and the period for submitting large shareholding reports and changes reports are relaxed to a certain extent (the “Reporting Exception System”). However, the Reporting Exception System is not applicable when such stock certificates are held for effecting material changes in or having a material effect on the business activities of the issuing company (collectively, “Material Proposals”). Because a narrower and more clearly-defined scope for Material Proposals would facilitate engagement between an issuing company and investors, the FSA Report suggests (i) that proposal concerning acts directly related to management control be deemed Material Proposals, but (ii) that a proposal concerning acts not directly related to management control be deemed Material Proposals only where the manner of such proposal is such that the proposal’s adoption is not left to the management of the issuing company. While the explanatory materials related to the Amendments published by the FSA indicated that proposals unrelated to management control such as change of the dividend policy or capital policy of the issuing company are not included in the scope of Material Proposals, how exactly this scope will be amended is not clear from the language of the Amendments. The details thereof are expected to be addressed in the amendments to the Enforcement Orders and the Cabinet Office Ordinance. (ii)              Scope of the Joint Holder Under the Large Shareholding Reporting System, where there are multiple holders of stock certificates who agree to jointly conduct acquisition or disposal of such stock certificates and exercise shareholder’s rights such as voting rights, such shareholders are treated as substantive joint holders. Because joint holder status affects whether shareholders are deemed to exert an influence on the management of the issuing company, the Amendments suggests that a shareholder be excluded from joint holder status if the following requirements are met: All of the holders are Financial Instruments Business Operators (defined in the FIEA), banks or other persons to be specified in the Cabinet Office Ordinances. The purpose of the agreement does not constitute a Material Proposal; and The agreement is an agreement to jointly exercise voting rights or other rights (which agreement shall be limited to an agreement specified in the Cabinet Office Ordinances). As in the case of the scope of the Material Proposals, the detailed rules of the scope of the joint holders are expected to be clarified in the amendments to the Enforcement Orders. III.         Enforcement to breach of the Large Shareholding Reporting System The amendments of the FIEA in 2008 introduced the imposition of administrative monetary penalties on persons who fail to submit a large shareholding report and/or make a false statement therein. Nonetheless, there have only been eight cases of the imposition of such penalties for the period between 2008 and May 2024. The FSA Report pointed out that many shareholders who are obligated to file a large shareholding report fail to do so, and the Large Shareholding Reporting System is not routinely enforced. Recently, there have been cases in which multiple shareholders were accused of implicitly cooperating to acquire shareholdings in an issuing company, taking advantage of the difficulty in accurately ascertaining the details of the agreements between shareholders in order to identify them as joint holders (so-called “wolfpack tactics”). In a notable case where the Japanese Supreme Court decided in 2022 that the takeover defense measures used by Mituboshi Co., Ltd. (“Mitsuboshi”) were in violation of the Companies Act, the activist fund who had acquired the shares in Mitsuboshi implicitly cooperated to acquire such shares with multiple shareholders. This case, which attracted a great deal of attention, was also an example of the wolfpack tactics mentioned above. In light of the foregoing, the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission (the “SESC”) announced on June 28, 2024 its recommendation to the Commissioner of the FSA to issue an order to pay an administrative monetary penalty for non-submission of a large shareholding report and false statements in a change report in relation to the shares in Mitsuboshi. In accordance with this recommendation, the Commissioner of the FSA has decided to impose an administrative monetary penalty of JPY 320,000 on one of the shareholders subject to this recommendation as of Augst 28, 2024. It is notable that this is the first case where an administrative monetary penalty was imposed solely for a violation of the requirement to submit a large shareholding report. IV.         Conclusion In addition to the above, the Amendments include material changes which would have impact on the practice of the Large Shareholding Reporting System; however, as mentioned above, it should be noted that the details of the Amendments will be clarified in the upcoming amendments to the Enforcement Orders and Cabinet Office Ordinances. We recommend keeping an eye on the developments with respect to these further amendments to the related orders and regulations, as well as changes to the practice of the Large Shareholding Reporting System. Moreover, it will be important to monitor the FSA’s enforcement of the Reporting System after the Mitsuboshi case, as this may have an impact on foreign investors holding stock certificates for listed companies. Author: Yoshitaka Kato
06 November 2024
Press Releases

Opening of Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu London Office

Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu is pleased to announce the establishment of its new office in London, its first permanent presence in Europe. The office is slated to open in January 2025. Our London office will be headed by Kiyoshi Honda, a member of NO&T’s Infrastructure, Energy & Environment and Real Estate practice teams. Mr. Honda has extensive experience in energy projects, including renewable energy, environmental law-related matters, real estate transactions, and outbound transactions involving the U.K. and continental Europe. He will serve as the Representative of our London office and is expected to relocate to the U.K. around late November 2024 and commence his role at the London office in January 2025. In addition to the opening of our presence in London, we have also significantly expanded our European Practice Group, which now comprises more than ten partners from various practice areas and with extensive experience in Europe-related business. Our European Practice Group covers a broad range of focus areas and is a centerpiece of the firm’s international strategy. Our London office will be working in close collaboration with the members of our European Practice Group in Tokyo and our network of leading law firms in the U.K. and across the European continent. As a local contact point within the European time zone, our presence in London will be an invaluable addition to our practice, enhancing the quality and scope of the services we offer to the next level. Further details regarding the official opening date, address, and other information concerning our London office will be announced in due course.   View original article here.  
05 November 2024
Press Releases

Hitoshi Sumisawa joins Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu

Hitoshi Sumisawa (former Commissioner of Japan’s National Tax Agency) joined Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu as a special advisor on October 16, 2024. Mr. Sumisawa began his distinguished career at the Ministry of Finance in 1988. Over his 30-year tenure with the Ministry of Finance and the National Tax Agency, Mr. Sumisawa was mainly involved in tax planning policy and taxation practice. He served in key positions including Director-General of the Main Taxation Bureau and Commissioner of the National Tax Agency, after serving as Director-General and Deputy Commissioner of the Main Taxation Bureau. With this extensive experience, Mr. Sumisawa brings in-depth knowledge and expertise in both tax planning policy formulation and its practical implication. He has also built an extensive network of relationships within taxation authorities. With the addition of Mr. Sumisawa, we will further strengthen our established tax practice.   View original article here.  
05 November 2024
Press Releases

Yoshihiro (Yoshi) Takatori joins Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu

Yoshihiro (Yoshi) Takatori joined Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu as a Special Advisor on September 1, 2024. Mr. Takatori brings extensive expertise and practical experience in international dispute resolution, including cross-border litigation, arbitration, and mediation. He is one of the few Japanese practitioners to hold the distinguished qualification of Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (F.C.I.Arb.). With the addition of Mr. Takatori, we will strengthen our international arbitration/mediation and cross-border litigation practices, and we are committed to providing the highest quality of legal services to meet our clients’ business needs. View original article here.  
03 October 2024
Content supplied by Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu