Does Japan need a right to repair law?
By Qi Jun Kwong (Affiliated Research Fellow, RCLIP; Hokkaido University)
Going back to RCLIP’s December 2025 session on IP law and sustainability, one point in particular stood out: the things we own increasingly behave like they still belong to someone else (do I own it, or do I own a license to use it?). Look no further than our electronic devices - manufacturers lean on a mix of IP law and technical design to keep a tight grip downstream - proprietary screwheads, parts pairing via serial numbers, glued or soldered components, high spare‑part prices, legal threats over sharing service manuals, or bypassing digital locks.
But more importantly, these design and legal choices are not just deliberate strategies by manufacturers; they now sit at the heart of emerging “right to repair” reforms that seek to re‑assert a meaningful boundary between owning a product and remaining dependent on its manufacturer.
The Right to Repair Legislation
The right to repair movement stems from this frustration: as products become more complex and tightly controlled, the ability to fix them seems to recede just as quickly. The EU and several US states have to some extent carved into the enforcement of IP rights to preserve a consumer’s ability to repair – forced disclosure of repair manuals, exemption from technological protection measures (TPMs), and access to parts and repair tools. In the EU, the right to repair is tied to the European Green Deal and 2020 Circular Economy Action Plan, and implemented through an expanding suite of measures, including the Ecodesign framework and the Right to Repair Directive. Manufacturers of the annexed categories must supply parts, tools, and repair information, and repair products within a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost.
In the US, the story is more fragmented. There is no federal right to repair; instead, a growing thicket of state laws covers specific sectors and product types. All 50 states have now enacted or proposed specific legislation: New York, Minnesota, California, Colorado, and Oregon specifically impose obligations on original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to provide spare parts, tools, and documentation on “fair and reasonable terms” for certain periods, but each state carves out different categories - motor vehicles, medical devices, game consoles, e‑bikes, and more. Most statutes explicitly protect trade secrets and highly sensitive IP, which means manufacturers do not have to share their entire toolbox; they need only share what is necessary to make repair possible.
Canada has their own variation: at a federal level Copyright Act exceptions have been introduced to allow circumvention of TPMs for diagnosis, maintenance, and repair. Quebec mandates disclosure of spare‑parts availability and bans deliberate obsolescence.
At the other end of the globe, the only Asia-Pacific jurisdiction which has some form of a right to repair law is Australia, which applies only to automotives and requires manufacturers, importers, and distributors to provide fair access to relevant information required to repair vehicles to all repairers. India now has a right-to-repair portal that disseminates information on product repair and reuse and appears to be on the path to statutory recognition. Korea has a list of products subject to sustainable use as part of their circular economy transition to align with initiatives in the EU and US. But not all initiatives have gone smoothly – just October last year, New Zealand saw its right to repair bill withdrawn.
Is IP a barrier to repair?
The existing right to repair legislation share two noteworthy commonalities: they are all heavily sector-specific, explicitly designating (EU) or excluding (US) certain categories of products; and apart from exemptions from circumventing TPM (Canada, US, EU (unless proven otherwise)) and design rights exception (EU), these repair rights “circumvent” IP rights (see e.g. Art. 5(6) of the Right to Repair Directive, “without prejudice to Union and national law providing for the protection of [IP] rights;” and section 41.121(3) of the Canadian Copyright Act (“not entitled to benefit from the exception (…) if the person does an act that constitutes an infringement of copyright”). Taken together, the right to repair legislation seems to create narrow pockets of carve-outs in IP rights, leaving intact the underlying exclusive rights.
The right to repair is driven by two accounts: (i) an individual’s interest to maintain and restore purchased products, and (ii) creation of a circular economy by minimising e-wastes. During the RCLIP session, Professor Angsar Ohly pointed to law and ecology as a revolutionary approach, moving from a bipolar (proprietor v user) to a tripolar (proprietor v user v consumer/public) model – but promptly expressed some reservations. Normativity of IP law and enforcement aside, Prof. Ichiro Nakayama asked if IP really is a barrier to repair, and backed that doubt with facts and figures: fast-tracked examination processes for green patents, JPO’s GXTI classification for climate-friendly tech, and explored proposals such as voluntary patent pledges by reducing patent fees or subsidising licensing fees to contribute to greener technologies. Then Dr Lucie Antoine zoomed out to the AI sector on energy-hungry data centres, applying the ecological approach to the AI industry and how regulatory changes can help (more eco-friendly designs, better licensing rates for energy-efficient training, more open-source models, but less “open washing”).
But this brings us back to the seemingly absurd proposition that repairing a purchased product can amount to an IP infringement – for all the years IP law has existed it is hard to believe this could be the case. Turns out, patent law has built a substantial body of case law, with toner cartridges the lead actors in recent cases, exploring where repair ends and “making” begins (see e.g. Calidad, Impression, Drum Unit case). As Professor Yuko Kimijima explained, in Canon Ink Tank the Japanese Supreme Court laid down several considerations on whether recycling one-time-use cartridges amount to a new embodiment of the patented invention; taken together, since the cartridges are supposed to lose their ability to perform the patented function past a certain point, reviving the essential patent function constitutes impermissible remanufacture (this was not a great day for sustainability, even though Canon reports that it recycles those spent cartridges as heat source in cement manufacturing). Generally, however, a strong doctrinal purchase on international exhaustion strengthens the case for excluding repairs from patent infringement (unfortunately, not the case for upcycling of trademarked goods; see a Korean judgment here, and a Singapore judgment here.)
So, does Japan actually need one?
Policy-wise, Japan has a proven track record of implementing environmentally friendly laws. New initiatives such as the 2020 Circular Economy Vision and 2023 Growth‑Oriented Resource‑Autonomous Economic Strategy shows a commitment to creating a circular economy. None of these instruments however squarely articulates a “right to repair.” While other jurisdictions have bolted right to repair laws in their circular economy engines, Japan can decide whether it needs the extra part at all. There is no law in Japan that squarely forces manufacturers to hand over spare parts or repair-related information. A generous reading of the Copyright Act however provides some breathing room. So if a John Deere-style TPM lock-out were to happen in Japan, on the access control side (i.e. “technological exploitation restriction measures” as defined in Art. 2(1)(xxi)) one could at least argue that Art. 113(6) would treat circumvention as non-infringing as long as it “does not harm the interest of the owner of the copyright, etc.” Copy-control (i.e. “technological protection measures,” as defined in Art. 2(1)(xx)) guards the reproduction side, and if temporary copies are made during the repair operations, Art. 30‑4 and Art. 47-4(2) may be invoked to argue that those circumventions are permitted, but only where the interests of copyright holder is not “unreasonably prejudiced.” In practice, that means repairers are invited to argue that their circumvention is harmless while copyright holders are equally invited to disagree.
However, looming over this are the sale or distribution of devices to sidestep TPMs. In Japan, sellers and distributors will find themselves liable under Art. 113(7) and 120-2. This keep Japan in familiar company with the EU’s anti-circumvention regime under, specifically Art. 6(2)(c) of the Infosoc Directive and Art. 7(1)(c) of the Software Directive.
The clearest benefit of a right to repair legislation in Japan would likely lie in mandating access to spare parts and repair information (and potentially, drawing from EU’s Ecodesign framework, designing products that are repairable and easy to disassemble). Still, whether such legislation is actually needed is ultimately more empirical than theoretical: evidence on similar software lockouts, aftermarket structure, health of independent repair sectors, and surveys on consumer experience with repairs should first be carried out. Further, Japan already reserves a competition-law response - if a manufacturer imposes restrictions in the aftermarket, such as tying up the sale of product to repair services or repair parts, the Anti-monopoly Act springs into action (see e.g. Ricoh). Expressly jumping on the wagon to codify a right to repair risks being a solution in search of a question: it may help to keep Japan aligned with key export markets, but may not, based on current evidence (or lack thereof) be addressing an existing domestic issue.