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 2]

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 the second part of the interview, we discussed what inspired him to pursue intellectual property law, the ability to interpret legislative intent he gained through his secondment to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, the impact of the spread of generative AI on trade secret management and the responses companies should take, and his beliefs as a lawyer and career vision centered on the "back-and-forth movement between reality and theory."

The first part isCLICK HERE

The background to my aspirations in the field of intellectual property and the perspectives I gained from my secondment to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry — How my experience on the "lawmaking side" is useful in practice

—In the first part of this interview, we discussed specialized topics such as the leakage of trade secrets. Now, I'd like to ask about Attorney Kurokawa's background.
You specialize in intellectual property, but what initially sparked your interest in the field?

My interest in intellectual property began in high school. I played the trumpet in the brass band and also loved classical music, so at the time I was seriously considering becoming a professional musician, even taking private lessons from a professional. However, as I was thinking about my future, I began to feel the limitations of being a performer, and a certain experience became a turning point.
During high school, I had the opportunity to be involved in the recording of an anime production, and it was there that I first became acutely aware of the existence of "professionals who support the production behind the scenes." Entertainment such as music and anime is not simply creation; it is supported by various rights and systems. Experiencing this structure made me think, "Perhaps there is a way for me to be involved not as a creator, but as someone who supports it." Extending from that, I became interested in the fields of copyright and intellectual property, and decided to pursue intellectual property law as a career that supports creators and industries.

—Have you consistently pursued a career in the intellectual property field since passing the bar exam?

Yes, intellectual property law was one of my elective subjects for the bar exam, and I have consistently pursued a career in the field of intellectual property. I have specialized in intellectual property research since my university days and have published papers in academic journals.(1,2 *This link will take you to the Hokkaido University website.) I was also able to gain experience in this field. I wanted to study under Professor Tamura (Yoshiyuki), a leading expert in intellectual property law (currently a professor at the Graduate School of Law and Politics, University of Tokyo), so I decided to attend the Hokkaido University Law School, where he was studying at the time.
Even after entering the practical field, I've dealt with various areas such as patents, copyrights, and unfair competition prevention law, but I've always been particularly conscious of the perspective of "the legal field that connects entertainment and industry."

—So that's why you decided to be seconded to the Intellectual Property Office at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry?

Actually, I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't know anything about the employee secondment system at first. I only learned about its existence when the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry approached me about it, and that's when I started considering it.
Within the typical career path of a lawyer, I hadn't consciously considered the option of "joining the government and becoming involved in policymaking." However, being approached by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry gave me the opportunity to shift my perspective from "using the law" to "making the law." What was important here was considering in which areas I could contribute value and which fields would grow in the future.
This is because, within intellectual property law, patent law and copyright law are already mature areas with many experts, well-established systems, and accumulated practical experience. On the other hand, the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is, so to speak, a "law in motion," an area that is evolving extremely dynamically in response to technological innovation and changes in business models.
For example, the introduction of protection for restricted access data is a pioneering initiative on a global scale. In other words, unfair competition law is a field that has potential precisely because it is "incomplete," and I thought that by getting involved in it, I could participate in rule-making rather than just being a specialist. From a corporate legal perspective, this has extremely important implications. That is, the ability to participate not only in "optimization in mature legal fields" but also in "rule-making in immature fields" will determine future competitive advantages.

—What are some of the most memorable experiences you've had working on legal revisions at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry?

Ultimately, the scale and complexity of a project like legal reform are incomparable to the cases handled by a single lawyer.
First, the number of stakeholders involved is overwhelmingly large. These stakeholders are not only within the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, but also from the Japan Patent Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, and even from industry and academia—a multi-layered network of parties. Each has different perspectives and interests, and these must ultimately be brought together into a single legal provision.
In practical terms, we sometimes had discussions that lasted late into the night. However, what I realized through that process was that "every single word of the clause has meaning." Even in corporate law, the wording of a contract clause can significantly change the risk, but legal reform can be said to be an extension of that scale to the national level.
What was particularly memorable was the moment when the wording I had contributed to finally became law. This wasn't just a sense of accomplishment, but a real feeling that I had "shaped a part of society's rules." I think the understanding that "systems are not given, but formed" is also useful for people in the business world. I believe that the perspective of at what stage and how to get involved in systems that affect one's business will become increasingly important in the future.

—I'd like to ask you a little more about your work at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. What differences did you notice between working at a law firm and working at a government agency?

If I had to pinpoint a key difference, I'd say it's the "magnitude of the stakeholders." Lawyers generally aim to maximize their clients' interests, while government officials consider "what is best for the country as a whole." For example, when considering whether a certain technology should be protected, a lawyer might base their decision on "whether it is advantageous for this client." However, government officials need a macro perspective, considering things like "how this system change will affect the entire industry" and "whether it will contribute to the country's economic growth."
It's also important to recognize that law is merely one policy tool among many. Among multiple policy tools such as subsidies, tax systems, and guidelines, law is just one option. In terms of corporate management, this might be described as "legal affairs are part of management, but not everything." It's crucial to consider how the legal department should be positioned within the overall business strategy, rather than having it make decisions in isolation.

—After your secondment, you must have felt that you grew as a lawyer, right?

The biggest takeaway is that I've come to understand the background behind interpretations. Normally, lawyers interpret laws based on statutes and precedents, but when you're involved in legal reform, you can understand the legislative process—why those statutes were put in that form. This is a huge advantage because it allows for interpretations that take into account the legislative intent and the history of the deliberations, which cannot be gleaned from the wording of the statutes alone.
Furthermore, through in-depth discussions with academics and practitioners, my own framework of thinking expanded. The opportunity to directly discuss with leading experts is something rarely found in typical practice. I believe that even for those in corporate legal departments, understanding "why a rule exists" can enable more strategic decision-making. I was reminded of the importance of understanding not only the results but also the underlying principles and processes, and I feel that my perspective as a lawyer has broadened.
As an aside, having spent four years in Kasumigaseki, I developed a habit of summarizing information into a single, simple diagram—a common occurrence in Kasumigaseki. Lately, when traveling with my family, I've been using Nano Banan to plan our itineraries.aI've put it all together in a simple diagram so I can easily check it anytime with just one image. It's surprisingly convenient.

—That's an anecdote you'd only get in Kasumigaseki. How do you think your knowledge and experience at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry will be useful in your work at a law firm?

We aim to provide an integrated strategy that focuses on trade secrets and unfair competition laws, while also incorporating patents.
I believe this area is crucial as it relates to economic security, but both companies and legal professionals still don't have a high level of awareness regarding specific procedures such as initial response and cooperation with the police, as well as their importance. There are few experts and not many papers on the subject, so I hope to systematize this information, incorporating overseas cases, and widely disseminate and educate the public about it.
Traditionally, companies often faced a dichotomy between "protecting their information through patents" or "keeping it confidential as a trade secret." However, the boundary between these two approaches has become blurred. Furthermore, advancements in generative AI have made reverse engineering easier, increasing the difficulty of maintaining information as a secret. As a result, companies are increasingly choosing patent protection when a certain period of exclusivity is sufficient.
In other words, intellectual property strategy has transformed into a problem of finding the optimal balance between open and closed practices. Making the wrong judgment in this area increases the risk of losing a competitive advantage.

Trade secret management in the age of generative AI and the role of lawyers: Decision-making that moves between practice and theory

—The advancement of AI is likely to have a significant impact on intellectual property and trade secret management.

That's right. The proliferation of generative AI is drastically changing the fundamentals of trade secret management. Previously, the focus was on "how to prevent information from leaking out," but now the perspective needs to be "to what extent should we utilize it, and where should we control it?"
A particular issue is the relationship between "confidentiality management" and the use of AI. Some have raised concerns that inputting information into AI might compromise confidentiality. However, overemphasizing this concern could cause companies to hesitate in using AI altogether. I believe this is a matter of balance. In other words,
• Contractual protection (terms of service, data usage scope)
• Technical measures (access control, log management)
- Internal rules (clarification of the scope of input information)
By managing these aspects across multiple layers, we should control risks while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of AI.
Even more important is the "relative assessment of risk." When comparing the potential risks of using AI with the competitive disadvantage risks of not using it, the latter is often greater.
For companies, the decision will need to include factors such as whether the risk level is acceptable, rather than simply whether it is completely safe.

—That sounds like a difficult decision to make. In such a situation, how should a lawyer advise their client?

In my opinion, the first step is to "present the risks accurately and comprehensively." And in doing so, I believe it's also important not to be overly sympathetic to the client. In corporate legal practice, there are often situations where advice is requested with a predetermined conclusion in mind, but even in such situations, I believe the lawyer's role is to "present the information that forms the basis of decision-making without distortion." Specifically,
Probability of legal risks occurring
- The impact if it occurs (amount of damage, reputational risk, etc.)
Avoidability and alternatives
It is important to organize and structure these elements and present them in a clear and concise manner. The key here is the idea of ​​"not aiming for zero risk." Risk is unavoidable in business, and in fact, appropriately controlled risk can even be a source of value creation.
Therefore, it is necessary to clearly define "which risks should be taken and tolerated" and "which risks should be avoided." For the client, this process is not merely a legal response, but "part of management decision-making." It is no exaggeration to say that how the legal department and external lawyers are integrated into the decision-making process will affect the quality of decision-making throughout the company.
Furthermore, in the field of trade secrets, what I particularly value is the perspective of "not letting it end with just post-incident response." Once a trade secret is leaked, the information can never be recovered. That's why, in parallel with resolving the case, I believe my job is to analyze "why the leak occurred" from the perspective of the management system and to create a system that prevents the same thing from happening again.

—I see. When giving that kind of advice, what values ​​do you, as a lawyer, keep in mind?

What I value most is the "back-and-forth movement between reality and theory." I believe this is not merely a matter of balance, but a way of thinking that fundamentally defines the quality of decision-making.
First, in practical business, the starting point is the facts and realities of the business, in other words, the "actual situation." Companies are constantly forced to make decisions in a competitive environment, and speed and effectiveness are required. Therefore, at the operational level, the priority tends to be "just take action" and "get results." However, decisions based solely on the actual situation may work in the short term, but they risk losing consistency in the medium to long term. This is because legal evaluations and regulatory environments are based on a certain theoretical framework. Decisions made without theory become inexplicable later on, and as a result, risks may materialize.
On the other hand, an overemphasis on theory also has its problems. No matter how sophisticated a theory may be, if it does not fit into real-world business, its practical value is limited. Especially in new business models and technological fields, there are many cases that cannot be adequately explained by existing theories. Therefore, what is important is a cycle of "building a theory starting from reality and then applying that theory back to reality." I believe that persistently repeating this process is the core of a lawyer's value.
From a management perspective, this can also be rephrased as "explainability of decision-making." Maintaining the ability to explain "why that decision is rational," rather than simply making the right judgment, supports the sustainability of the organization.

—Finally, could you tell us about your future career vision?

Going forward, I want to contribute by acting as a bridge between practice and theory. I envision myself not merely as an expert, but as someone who "designs structures." Specifically, I want to create a cycle where I theorize the knowledge gained from practice and then reintroduce it back into practice. For example, in areas such as the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and trade secrets, there are still many unresolved issues, but I believe that if we can systematize these and translate them into a form that makes it easier for companies to make decisions, we can contribute to improving the competitiveness of Japanese companies as a whole.
Furthermore, we want to actively gather information from overseas. Intellectual property and data issues, including trade secrets, are interconnected globally, and we need to consider Japan's position in comparison to the systems and practices of other countries.
Ultimately, we aspire to be an entity that contributes to sustainable value creation by bridging the gap between these three areas: "practical work (corporate activities)," "theory (academic and legal interpretation)," and "policy (institutional design)."
Regarding trade secrets, I'm such a trade secret enthusiast that I ego-search "trade secrets" every morning. I strive to become the most knowledgeable person about trade secrets and the first person that companies facing trade secret issues will think of.

【2026.4.2】