Japan

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.

On June 5, 2025 the House of Councilors approved an amendment to Whistleblower Protection Act (“Act”) which strengthens whistleblower protections. The amendment will be promulgated in the near future and the amendment will take effect on some date which will be within 1 year and 6 months from the date of promulgation. The following chart shows the key amendments. For more information, please feel free to contact us. Protected Persons Current Law Employees (full-time and part-time) Dispatched Workers Executive Officers Former Employees and Dispatched Workers (who have left within the last year) After Amendments Employees (full-time and part-time) Dispatched Workers Executive Officers Former Employees and Dispatched Workers (who have left within the last year) Freelance Workers and Former Freelance Workers whose contract has ended within the last year) Definition of Whistleblowing Current Law Reports of misconduct that fulfill certain requirements related to criminal acts or violations of designated laws are protected. Harassment claims are not considered whistleblowing. *Note there are a number of violations that are included and a company should confirm, which violations fall under whistleblowing. After Amendments Certain violations of this Act will also be considered whistleblowing. Identification Protections Current Law No current restrictions. After Amendments Identifying a whistleblower without a valid reason is prohibited. Disadvantageous Treatments, Dismissal & Disciplinary Action Presumptions Current Law Invalidation Dismissing employees/terminating worker dispatch agreements on the basis of the whistleblowing is invalid. Prohibition Any disadvantageous treatments* to whistleblowers on the basis of the whistle blowing are prohibited. *Disadvantageous treatment can include transfers, secondments, etc. After Amendments Invalidation Dismissals, termination of dispatch worker contracts and disciplinary actions made on the basis of the whistleblowing are invalid. Newly Added Presumption for Invalidation: Dismissals or disciplinary actions to employees which occur within one year after the whistleblowing report is made would be presumed to have been made on the basis of whistleblowing and the company would have the burden of proof to prove that the action was not done “on the basis of” the whistleblowing. Dismissals or disciplinary actions which are deemed to be made “on the basis of” are considered invalid. Whistleblowing Obstruction Current Law No current restrictions. After Amendments Unless there is a valid reason, preventing or disincentivizing someone from making a whistleblowing report, such as by demanding an individual agree to not make a report, telling an individual that he/she will be treated disadvantageously, etc. is prohibited. Criminal Sanctions for Dismissal and Disciplinary Action Current Law Currently no criminal sanctions for dismissal and disadvantageous treatment After Amendments Newly Added Criminal Sanctions* for dismissals and disciplinary action on the basis of the whistleblowing: To individuals Imprisonment of up to 6 months, or Fine of up to 300,000 JPY To companies Fine of up to 30,000,000 JPY *Note the “on the basis of” presumption does not apply to criminal cases. Applicability to Companies Current Law Large Companies (300+ Employees): Must establish internal reporting systems and designate responsible personnel. Small Companies (<300 Employees): Not legally required to establish a reporting system, but must still respond appropriately if a report is made. After Amendments No Change Designating Responsible Personnel (300+ Employees) Current Law Administrative Measures For failure to designate responsible personnel, the following administrative measures can be taken: Administrative instructions Administrative recommendations After Amendments Administrative Measures For failure to designate responsible personnel, the following administrative measures can be taken: Administrative instructions Administrative recommendations On-site inspections Administrative orders for non-compliance of administrative recommendations Criminal Sanctions (Newly Added) Fine up to 300,000　JPY can be imposed for: Noncompliance of the administrative order False Reporting/non-reporting when required Inspection refusal

The Act on Childcare Leave, Caregiver Leave, and Other Measures for the Welfare of Employees Caring for Children or Other Family Members was amended on May 31, 2024. Some of those amendments, which are as follows, take effect on October 1, 2025. Obligation for Achieving a Flexible Working Style As of October 1, 2025, an employer will be obligated to take measures which enable applicable employees to achieve a flexible working style. Applicable employees are those employees who are raising a child between the ages of three and the start of elementary school. Under the new obligation, an employer is required to offer at least two of the following five options to applicable employees: Alternative Set Working Hours: Introduce a flextime system or other system where employees have the ability to change their arrival and departure time. Work From Home: Introduce a work from home system where the employee is permitted to work his/her prescribed working hours from home 10 or more days per month. Childcare Facilities: Establish and operate childcare facilities or provide any other similar benefits (e.g. provide a system where an employee can arrange for a babysitter and the employer bears the cost). Special Leave: Granting at least 10 days of special leave per year to support the balancing of work and child-rearing. Shortened Working Hours: Shortening the prescribed working hours to six hours. Applicable employees can then choose to use one of the options made available by the employer. With respect to work from home and special leave, employer must allow applicable employees to use these options on an hourly basis. In addition, before choosing which measures to offer, an employer must obtain an opinion from the majority union (or the employee representative if there is no majority union at a workplace). Obligation to Provide Individual Notification Under the amendments, an employer will also be obligated to individually notify employees with a child under the age of three of the details of the flexible working style systems that the employer making available to the applicable employee, and the employer must confirm which of the offered options the employee would like to utilize. Such notification must be provided by at least one month before the child’s third birthday. Working Conditions Confirmation Obligation If either of the two conditions exist: an employer is informed that an employee or the employee’s spouse is expecting a child or has recently given birth to a child, or an employee is caring for a child who is/will be turning three years of age, then, the employer has an obligation to confirm if the employee has particular desires with respect to certain working conditions that are specified by the law (e.g. working hours, work location, etc.). The employer is also required to try to accommodate the employee’s wishes in light of the company’s circumstances.

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).