Japan

TMI Associates (Location: Minato-ku, Tokyo; Senior Managing Partner: Katsuro Tanaka) welcomed Ms. Reiga Shimizu, attorney-at-law, as a Regional Partner at its Paris Office as of October 1, 2025. She moved to France in 2005, and studied at the University of Paris I Pantheon-Sorbonne and the University of Paris XII. Since 2012, she gained practical experience at DS Avocats law office and was admitted to the Paris Bar Association. With a focus on French and European law, she has extensive experience in various fields relating to corporate legal affairs, such as M&A, joint venture and business alliance, group restructuring, personal data, customs and taxation, transaction agreement, dispute resolution, real estate law, labor law and other regular legal services for European subsidiaries. On various occasions, she has also provided advice on international transactions and legal compliance to both Japanese and French companies. We strongly believe that her joining TMI Associates will further strengthen our presence and service system in Europe. With her international practical experience and professional insight, we will provide our clients with more comprehensive legal services. [Career of Ms. Reiga Shimizu] March 1997 Keisen Jogakuen Senior High School March 2001 Chuo University (LL.B.) June 2008 University of Paris I Pantheon-Sorbonne (LL.M) March 2010 DS Avocats law office (in Paris, France) (Trainee) June 2010 University of Paris XII (Professional second Master’s Degree of Contracts and commercial Law) March 2012 DS Avocats law office (in Paris, France) September 2019 Paris Bar Association October 2025 TMI Avocats & Associés (Regional partner (France))   About TMI Associates Since its founding in 1990, TMI Associates has strived to create a law firm that is distinct from any other in Japan and that recasts the image of both attorneys and patent/trademark attorneys. During the past 35 years, the firm has experienced rapid organic growth, both numerically and geographically, while maintaining its progressive culture. From starting with 43 personnel, including ten attorneys and one patent attorney at its founding, as of March 3, 2025, TMI now has 632 attorneys and 101 patent/trademark attorneys among its 1,232 total personnel, and is one of the five largest law firms in Japan. TMI has numerous overseas branches and local desks in Shanghai, Beijing, Yangon, Singapore, Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi, Phnom Penh, Bangkok, Jakarta*, Kuala Lumpur*, Manila, Silicon Valley, São Paulo, Mexico City, London, Paris, Brussels, Nairobi and Sydney. TMI is also well positioned to provide a wide range of global legal services through its Chinese service group, French practice group, India desk, and Korean desk located in its Tokyo office, as well as its joint venture relationships in Japan with Simmons & Simmons LLP (UK), Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP (US), and ARQIS Foreign Law Office (Germany). TMI provides a comprehensive range of legal services regarding international corporate transactions and international investment and trade business transactions. The firm has an unrelenting focus on supporting the global business development needs of its clients – both Japanese and international companies – by providing legal services ranging from the acquisition and protection of patent and intellectual property rights to licensing, mergers and acquisitions, financing matters and even dispute resolution. *Affiliated Office HP: https://www.tmi.gr.jp/ Contact Information Jumpei Osada, attorney-at-law (Daiichi Tokyo Bar Association) in charge of PR, TMI Associates TEL: 03-6438-5356 (PR department) FAX: 03-6438-5522 E-mail: [email protected]

Anderson Mori & Tomotsune (Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo; “AMT”) is pleased to announce that, as of October 28, 2025, we have opened our “Malaysia Desk” in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, enabling us to respond more directly to clients’ needs. As ASEAN Chair in 2025, Malaysia is seeing increased activity in investment promotion and policy initiatives, with steady growth in semiconductor and data center investments. In addition to the capital, Kuala Lumpur, investment promotion is accelerating in Penang, a major semiconductor cluster, and Johor Bahru, where special economic zone initiatives are advancing.   In line with this trend, our Malaysia Desk operates in a business collaboration with a leading local law firm, RDS Partnership, enabling us to address investment needs across Malaysia. With offices in Penang and Johor Bahru, RDS Partnership can provide seamless support for matters outside Kuala Lumpur as well. By situating our Desk within RDS Partnership, we enhance our on‑the‑ground capabilities and can quickly provide high‑quality legal services to Japanese companies already operating in Malaysia and those considering market entry.   Our Malaysia Desk supports clients on a wide range of matters in Malaysia, including M&As, joint ventures, financing transactions, tax and customs, licensing and regulatory approvals, engagement with authorities, and dispute resolution. We also advise—based on up‑to‑date local conditions—on post‑entry legal issues, such as compliance and labor, with services available in Japanese.   Akitaka Anzai, Partner and Head of our Bangkok Office, who has prior experience stationed in Malaysia, will concurrently lead the Malaysia Desk. Working with our Japan and overseas offices, including Singapore, we will deliver practical, locally grounded legal services.   ■Malaysia Desk ― Overview Registered Name:       Anderson Mori & Tomotsune Malaysia Desk Representative:           Akitaka Anzai Address:                      c/o RDS Partnership Level 16, Menara 1 Dutamas No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1, Solaris Dutamas 50480 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel.:                              60-3-6209-0461   ■Comment from Akitaka Anzai, Representative, Malaysia Desk As the investment environment continues to be strengthened and expanded, Malaysia is an important base for business development in ASEAN countries. Through collaboration with our local partner RDS, we will provide practical, swift, one‑stop support for matters beyond Kuala Lumpur.   Akitaka Anzai Mar 2003                   Waseda University (LL.B.) Oct 2004                     The Legal Training and Research Institute of the Supreme Court of Japan May 2010                    Graduate Study, University of Pennsylvania Law School (LL.M.) Oct 2010 - Sep 2011   Zaid Ibrahim & Co, Kuala Lumpur Nov 2012 - Nov 2013 Weerawong, Chinnavat & Peangpanor Ltd., Bangkok

Customer Harassment and Sexual Harassment towards Applicants In June 2025, some laws were amended in order to place additional obligations on employers for the purpose of protecting people from workplace harassment, and these amendments are scheduled to take effect in 2026. An overview of these coming changes is outlined below. Customer Harassment In 2023 the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (“MHLW”) conducted a survey on and found that the overall trend in the number of cases in which customers were harassing workers had been increasing. In order to maintain a safe working environment and protect workers from this type of harassment, lawmakers have newly introduced obligations on employers to protect workers. Definition According to the amended Act on Comprehensively Advancing Labor Measures, and Stabilizing the Employment of Workers, and Enriching Workers' Vocational Lives (the “Labor Measures Comprehensive Advancing Act”), customer harassment is defined as conduct that meets all three of the following criteria: Is behavior by customers, business partners, facility users, or other stakeholders; Exceeds the bounds of what is socially acceptable; and Harms the employee’s working environment. Verbal abuse or shouting, unreasonable demands (e.g. forced apologies or excessive compensation demands), physical intimidation (e.g. grabbing clothing), and repeated or prolonged harassment (e.g. long phone calls or stalking) may fall under customer harassment. Obligations for Employers Under the amended Labor Measures Comprehensive Advancing Act, employers are obligated to implement necessary measures regarding employment management to prevent customer harassment. Employers are also required not to retaliate against employees for reporting customer harassment. Guidelines on the specific obligations that employers will be required to take have not yet been released by the MHLW. However, based on past guidelines for power harassment, sexual harassment, and maternity harassment, the following obligations will likely be required with respect to handling customer harassment: Establishing internal policies on how to prevent as well as promptly and appropriately respond to customer harassment; Ensuring that such policies are propagated and promoted within the company; Establishing a system that enables the company to appropriately respond to employee consultations (e.g. establishing hotlines or HR desks); Requiring that the company take preventive and corrective measures when harassment occurs. In addition, employers will be required to “make an effort” to: cooperate with other employers who request assistance in addressing issues related to customer harassment (e.g. in cases involving customer harassment by business partners); take necessary measures, such as conducting training, to ensure that employees exercise due care in their behavior toward the employees of other companies. Sexual Harassment Toward Job Seekers Etc. Currently, there is no law that specifically protects interns and people seeking employment but who have not yet been hired. However, as part of the same 2023 MHLW survey, the survey found that nearly one-third of all interns or other job seekers have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace or as part of the job seeking process. Accordingly, the amended Act on Equal Opportunity and Treatment between Men and Women in Employment (the “Equal Employment Opportunity Act”) will be extending legal protections to include the following regulations. Obligations for Employers: Under the amended Equal Employment Opportunity Act, employers are obligated to implement necessary measures regarding employment management to prevent sexual harassment toward interns and job seekers. Again, the MHLW has not yet released detailed guidelines with respect to these newly included groups; however, the following measures are likely to be include in order to protect interns and job seekers from sexual harassment committed by the employees of a company: Establishing a system that enables the company to appropriately respond to employee consultations (e.g. establishing hotlines or HR desks) Establishing clear rules for interactions, such as meetings or interviews, between employees and job seekers or interns Responding promptly and appropriately to complaints (e.g., providing apologies and support to victims, if harassment is confirmed). In addition, employers will be required to “make an effort” to take necessary measures, such as conducting training, to ensure that employees exercise appropriate care in their interactions with interns and job seekers.

Revisions to Trade Secret Management Guidelines   In March 2025, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (“METI”) updated its Trade Secret Management Guidelines (“Guidelines”) to reflect current changes in technology and recent legal trends. Some of the more salient revisions are described below, but the list is not exhaustive. Please contact us if you would like more information.   Definition of Trade Secret In order for a “Trade Secret” to be protected under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, a company needs to show that the information is technical or business information, which: is useful, kept confidential using appropriate control measures, and is not publicly known.   Key Revision Provisions Kept as Confidential Information Appropriate Control Measures: Types of Parties Previously the Guidelines did not distinguish between what constituted sufficient control measures depending on the party with access to the trade secrets. However, the recent amendments clarify what may be considered sufficient control measures based on the following types: Employees and Directors: What kind of system is in place in order for employees to be aware that the information is considered confidential and that special treatment is necessary. Business Partners: Whether confidential information was shared with a business partner after a confidentiality agreement was concluded. The absence of a confidentiality agreement does not necessarily mean that there were insufficient control measures, and evidence of other measures may still be presented. Appropriate Control Measures: Clarification of Measures for Employees and Directors The recent amendments clarify that, if it is obvious to employees that the information is important and naturally expected to be treated as confidential information, the following general measures may be considered sufficient control measures based on the following types. IDs and passwords are used to restrict access when logging into company computers, etc. Work rules, confidentiality agreements, etc. include language prohibiting disclosure of confidential information. Strictly limiting access on an employee-by-employee basis is not necessary, and broadly granting access rights to a specific department based on business necessity is considered to be sufficient limitations. Appropriate Control Measures: Generative AI With respect to Generative AI, if the following conditions exist: The information is kept and managed as a secret by one division of the company, The secret information is used learning data to train a model, and As a result of a prompt, the generative AI outputs information that contains the secret information and this generated output is made available to the same or a different division, Then, these facts alone are not sufficient to show that the confidentiality of the information has been negated. However, if the different division subsequently incorporates, distributes or otherwise provides the generated output containing the confidential information to an unspecified third party, the information would no longer be considered as “not publicly known”.   Not Publicly Known Several issues with respect to whether information is considered to be known by the public have been discussed in recent years, and METI’s perspective has been reflected in the Guidelines as follows: Information Leaked on the Dark Web The mere fact that secret information has been published on the dark web does not mean that the information is no longer considered to be “non-public”, and courts will still consider whether the information was generally known or easily accessible. Synthesizing Publicly Available Information Even if the parts of the information are considered to be publicly known or easily accessible, if the combination of such publicly known or easily accessible information is not considered to be known or easily accessible (e.g. due to the time and cost needed to acquire the information), then such information would not be considered known or easily accessible, and the information would retain its proprietary value. Reverse Engineering Whether or not the reverse engineering of a trade secret can be considered to have negated the non-public nature of the information depends on the level of difficulty for reverse engineering the information. In particular, if anyone can analyze the product and very easily reverse engineer the product, then the commercialization of the product is considered to be equivalent to disclosing the trade secret itself. However, if special skills are required and a considerable period of time is needed to reverse engineer the product, then merely making the product commercially available will not negate the non-public nature of the information.