An explanation by a lawyer specializing in trade secrets and unfair competition prevention law.
The importance of initial response and police cooperation in the event of a trade secret leak.

[Interview with lawyer Naoki Kurokawa - Part 1]

I was involved in the revision of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and the formulation of trade secret management guidelines at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and joined Mimura Komatsu Law Offices this April.Attorney Naoki KurokawaLeveraging a deep understanding of the background and intent of legal provisions cultivated through legislative experience, I specialize in trade secrets and unfair competition prevention laws.
In this article, lawyer Kurokawa explains the background to the increasing trend of trade secret leaks, as well as practical points such as responding to contamination (information inflow) risks, initial response upon discovery, evidence preservation, and cooperation with the police.

The second part isCLICK HERE

Why are trade secret leaks on the rise?
— The structure of digitalization, labor mobility, and contamination risk

—First, could you tell us about your career history and why you joined Mimura Komatsu Law Office?

I was admitted to the bar in 2017 and initially worked at a law firm specializing in franchise law. Later, I moved to another law firm, where I worked on intellectual property cases, primarily patent litigation, while also registering as a patent attorney.
From April 2022 to March 2026, I was seconded to the Intellectual Property Policy Office of the Economic and Industrial Policy Bureau of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry as a fixed-term civil servant, and this April I joined Mimura Komatsu Law Office.
My reason for deciding to join Mimura Komatsu Law Office was clear: I wanted to return to the litigation field. At the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, I was involved in legal reform, but laws are not finished once they are created; they only become meaningful when they are put into use, and the final outcome of that is litigation.
Mimura Komatsu Law Office has several former judges on staff, all of whom have a proven track record in the field of intellectual property. I was strongly attracted to the environment where I could learn about the thought process of how courts determine facts and reach conclusions, rather than just interpreting legal provisions, from multiple perspectives, and apply that knowledge to my practice.

—What specific tasks were you responsible for at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry?

The main focus is, of course, on amending the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. In order to change the law, it is essential to have legislative justification for "why the change is necessary," and to that end, we conduct numerous interviews with companies and gather information on the issues they face on the ground.
Following this, a bill is drafted and submitted to the Cabinet Legislation Bureau for review. This review is extremely rigorous, with every single word of the article being scrutinized. At the same time, it is necessary to reflect the opinions of experts and industry representatives in forums such as advisory councils.
Furthermore, we also prepare explanations and answers for members of parliament in preparation for parliamentary deliberations. I myself was involved in this entire process as a front-line staff member. Some of the wording I came up with was adopted directly into the articles of the bill, making it a very responsible and rewarding experience.
While lawyers are usually seconded to government agencies for a term of two years, I was fortunate enough to serve for four years, which allowed me to build a network with various organizations and participate in international symposiums, among other valuable experiences.

*Regarding legal amendments and fixed-term public officialsThis articlePlease also refer to the following. (This will take you to the Second Tokyo Bar Association website.)

-Trade Secret Management Guidelines I understand you were involved in the revision of [the document/format]. How do you think this will affect practical operations?

The role of the trade secret management guidelines is to provide one perspective from the standpoint of the administrative body responsible for the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. However, it is not necessarily possible to clarify all practical issues.
What's important is the "intention behind it." Every word in the articles and guidelines is chosen for a reason. Understanding that reason and purpose greatly affects your ability to handle atypical cases.
In that sense, I believe my experience in legislative and guideline-making can provide practical value that goes beyond mere interpretation. For example, if you consult me ​​regarding the interpretation of trade secret management guidelines or articles of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, I can provide more in-depth advice, taking into account the background not explicitly stated in the guidelines.

Regarding the Guidelines for the Management of Business Confidentiality,This article(This will take you to the BUSINESS LAWYERS website.) We also provide explanations on the YouTube channel linked below, so please feel free to refer to those as well.

—Recently, there have been reports of the highest number of cases ever involving the leakage of corporate trade secrets.

Report by Nikkei Inc.That's right. I understand that the increase in trade secret leaks is not due to a single factor, but rather a combination of multiple structural changes. I think there are three main factors, and it's important to note that they all interact with each other.
Firstly, there is the "lowering of the barrier to information leakage due to digitalization." In the past, when paper media was dominant, it was physically and psychologically difficult to take out customer lists or design drawings. Printing out large amounts of documents would attract attention, and there were restrictions on carrying them around. However, nowadays, trade secrets can be taken out in a very short time and invisiblely using methods such as USB memory sticks, cloud storage, or email forwarding. This "difficulty in leaving traces" has significantly reduced the deterrent effect.
Secondly, there is the "increase in labor mobility." In today's world, where job hopping has become commonplace, a stark contrast to the era when lifetime employment was the norm, the risk of information moving along with people has increased. In particular, the theft of trade secrets tends to concentrate just before an employee leaves their job to change careers, a phenomenon common not only in Japan but also overseas. While companies have an incentive to hire talented individuals, they also constantly face the possibility that these individuals may possess information from their previous jobs.
Thirdly, there is the "change in the evidence environment," namely the existence of digital logs. In the past, even if there was a "suspicion of unauthorized removal," there was often insufficient evidence to support it, and many cases did not go to court. However, nowadays, access logs, download history, email sending history, etc., are recorded in detail, making it possible to objectively show "who accessed what and when." As a result, the police are increasingly turning these cases into criminal cases, and this is dragging down the number of civil lawsuits as well. Furthermore, the intensification of global competition cannot be overlooked. As the source of a company's competitive advantage shifts from "technology itself" to "know-how" and "data," the value of trade secrets has relatively increased. In other words, there is also the aspect that the incentive to infringe on trade secrets has increased.

—I hear that recently, in addition to the leakage and outflow of trade secrets, the "contamination risk" of incoming trade secrets is also attracting attention.

That's right. Contamination refers to the risk of another company's trade secrets being "unintentionally mixed into one's own company's." While "leaking" was traditionally the main issue, nowadays, companies are being held accountable for "inflow" of trade secrets. A typical case is information brought in by a new employee. Companies hire expecting immediate contributions, but there is a possibility that trade secrets from the employee's previous job may be mixed in during that process.
Furthermore, a growing concern in recent years is the risks associated with collaborating with startups. Overseas, there has been an increase in cases where companies receive information during joint development or technology evaluation processes, and then proceed with development with a different partner, resulting in lawsuits alleging that "previous information was reused."
To address these kinds of risks, "pre-emptive design" is essential, rather than reactive measures. Specifically,
- A written pledge will be signed upon hiring.
- Limit the scope of information access.
- Separate and manage information for each project.
- Keep detailed records of the development process and decision-making.
- Implement measures to prevent information from being shared after the termination of the collaboration.
Such responses are required.
Furthermore, when a trade secret leak actually occurs and you need to issue a warning or negotiate with the other party, you will need to make an extremely difficult decision about "how much information to disclose." Excessive disclosure may damage your company's confidentiality, while insufficient disclosure may lead to unfavorable inferences.
Thus, contamination risk is not merely a legal issue, but a risk closely linked to business strategy, human resources strategy, and technology development strategy. Furthermore, crisis management responses in the event that contamination escalates into a criminal case are also a crucial point.
At Mimura Komatsu Law Office, we believe one of our strengths is our ability to provide comprehensive support, including post-incident response, in the event that a trade secret infringement becomes public, thanks to the collaboration between lawyers specializing in crisis management and external public relations firms.

—Returning to the perspective of preventing the leakage of trade secrets, what kind of preparations should companies make during normal times?

The important thing is not just to "completely prevent leaks," but also to "create a situation where legal protections are available even if a leak occurs." This perspective is extremely important.
First of all, as a prerequisite, in order for something to be protected as a trade secret under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, it must satisfy three requirements: (1) confidentiality, (2) usefulness, and (3) non-publicity. Of these, the most contentious issue is "confidentiality."
The following are some specific measures to ensure confidentiality:
Firstly, "clear labeling" is crucial. By adding labels such as "Confidential" or "For Internal Use Only" to the information in question, it objectively demonstrates that the information is being treated as confidential. This is an important factor in court decisions.
Secondly, there is the "implementation of access control." If anyone can access it, it is difficult to consider it as being managed as confidential. Setting access rights according to job duties and other factors is essential.
Thirdly, there is the need for "advanced log management." It is desirable to have a system that can track not only browsing logs but also download and external transmission histories. This will make it easier to secure evidence in the event of a breach.
Furthermore, providing education and training is crucial. By ensuring employees understand the concept of trade secrets and the risks of violations, internal deterrence can be enhanced. These efforts should be viewed not merely as compliance measures, but as "preparing weapons for emergencies."

The importance of initial response to trade secret leaks
— Practical aspects of evidence preservation, police cooperation, and peacetime preparedness

—If a trade secret leak actually occurs, what initial response should be taken?

The essence of trade secret leak cases lies in the fact that they are "disputes that depend on evidence." Therefore, the initial response is not simply a matter of speed, but rather "a process that determines whether the evidence is successful or not."
First and foremost, it is crucial to initiate an internal investigation as soon as suspicion arises. This investigation is not merely a simple interview, but rather "identifying the facts with the aim of securing evidence." Specifically, the investigation will focus on four key points: "who," "when," "which information they accessed," and "how they took the information."
One thing to pay particular attention to in this process is the log retention period. Some companies set the retention period for access logs to several months, and if the response is delayed, the evidence itself will be lost. This is an irreversible risk.
Furthermore, a high level of expertise is required in the methods of preserving evidence. For example, if appropriate forensic techniques are not used when acquiring PC or server data, there is a risk that "the possibility of evidence tampering" will be pointed out later. Therefore, it is essential to work with a digital forensics specialist and secure evidence through "lawful and reproducible procedures."
Furthermore, the initial response is not simply about gathering evidence, but also a "strategic turning point." Should we consider filing criminal charges, focus on civil litigation, or aim for a settlement through negotiation? These decisions depend heavily on the evidence available in the initial stages. We believe that lawyers specializing in trade secrets have the strength to advise on the extent to which evidence has been preserved, the degree to which confidentiality can be recognized, and what strategies can be adopted based on these factors. In conclusion, it is no exaggeration to say that the quality of the initial response and the strategic decision determine the entire course of events that follows.

—Depending on the content, the leakage of trade secrets could lead to either civil or criminal proceedings. When is the best time to consult a law firm? What role is expected of a lawyer in such a case?

In trade secret disclosure cases, criminal proceedings can be a very powerful tool. However, at the same time, they are a tool that will not work unless properly prepared.
A common misconception is that people will contact the police simply because something seems suspicious. However, the police won't take action based on this alone. For the police to act, a certain amount of evidence and legal justification are required.
Specifically, its activities include:
- Clarification of whether something qualifies as a trade secret (confidentiality, usefulness, and non-public nature)
- Preservation of evidence supporting the act of taking the items out of the store.
- Organize and present the preserved evidence.
- Specifying the extent of the damage
These are some of the required elements.
Even more important is "designing communication with the police." Trade secret leak cases differ from typical criminal cases in that they are highly specialized, and the police are not necessarily familiar with them. Therefore, it is crucial that a lawyer intervenes, organizes the issues, prepares the documents, and clarifies the direction of the investigation. Furthermore, since whether or not evidence has been preserved, or whether it is possible to preserve evidence, is critically important, we recommend consulting a law firm from the evidence preservation stage.
Proper cooperation with the police allows for the forced collection of evidence through criminal proceedings, which significantly impacts civil litigation. In other words, criminal and civil law are mutually complementary.

—So, initial response is extremely important in cases of trade secret leaks. Furthermore, regarding the importance of cooperation with the police, could you please explain in more detail how lawyers should be involved?

In cases involving the unauthorized removal of data or the leakage of trade secrets, criminal investigations are often possible. By cooperating with the police early on, it becomes possible to take actions that would be difficult to achieve through civil procedures alone, such as collecting evidence through compulsory investigations and identifying those involved. Conversely, whether or not you can establish contact with the police at this initial stage greatly influences the subsequent developments.
However, in practice, many legal professionals likely struggle to decide when and how to contact the police, which police department to consult, and what information to provide and at what level of detail. Disclosing too much information can pose risks to the company, while being overly cautious could cause them to miss the initial lead in an investigation.
This is where lawyers play a crucial role. Lawyers act as intermediaries between their client companies and the police, facilitating information flow and ensuring effective communication for both parties. In other words, they ensure that the company's interests (confidential information, reputation, etc.) are protected while providing the police with the necessary and sufficient information, thereby achieving effective cooperation.
However, such responses require more than just legal knowledge. In reality, practical communication experience with the police and a network based on trust play a significant role. If a lawyer lacks experience in handling criminal cases, they may not know which department to approach and when, which can lead to delayed coordination. Moreover, such knowledge and networks cannot be acquired overnight. Lawyers themselves must maintain communication and networks with the police on a regular basis.
In this respect, Mimura Komatsu Law Office has lawyers who are well-versed in both corporate law and criminal law, and has a system in place to ensure smooth cooperation with the police. In practice, we design strategies with police response in mind from the initial stages, and have supported companies in minimizing risks and effectively resolving problems by proceeding with evidence collection, fact organization, and dealing with authorities in an integrated manner.
Fortunately, during my time at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, I had the opportunity to communicate with police and public security officials from various prefectures and build a network through seminars. I believe this experience can be utilized at Mimura Komatsu Law Office. Initial response is truly a "race against time," and once evidence or opportunities are lost, they cannot be recovered. In this context, how strategically cooperation with the police is incorporated, and who is responsible for this, becomes a decisive factor that determines the outcome. I believe that for legal staff, being mindful of building such a system from peacetime will greatly enhance future crisis response capabilities.

Second partNow, let's hear from Attorney Kurokawa about what inspired him to become an expert in intellectual property and unfair competition law, his legislative experience at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and his beliefs and career vision as a lawyer, centered on the "back-and-forth movement between reality and theory."

【2026.4.2】