15 Intellectual Property Legal Education in Japan in theNew Millennium:Observations and Lessons from the U.S.
Ilhyung Lee(*)
Professor Ilhyung Lee's research project examines intellectual property legal education in Japan, from theview of a U.S. law school faculty member. The discussion is timely given the Japanese government'srecognition of the important role of intellectual property in the national agenda, and the beginnings of the newlaw school in Japan. Professor Lee's article begins with a brief background of intellectual property in Japanand the teaching of intellectual property law in Japanese higher education on the eve of the new law school. It
also offers outsider observations on various aspects of intellectual property education in Japan. This isfollowed by a brief description of intellectual property curriculum in the U.S. law school, including specific itemsof discussion by intellectual property faculty stateside that may be of interest to law teachers and administrators
in Japan. One question for consideration is to what extent intellectual property law education in Japan and theU.S. reflect the respective societal culture. The article encourages discussion on how faculty in Japan could
benefit from the experience of a more developed intellectual property curriculum in the U.S., while developing asystem tailored for Japanese objectives.

In January of this year, I completed athree-week visiting research opportunity at theInstitute of Intellectual Property (IIP), focusing on
the subject of intellectual property (IP) law
education in Japan. The results of the research will
be available in an article from the IIP to bepublished shortly. This essay explains how I
became interested in the project, and provides asummary of my findings contained in the article.

Background
Currently, I am a member of the faculty at theUniversity of Missouri School of Law in Columbia,Missouri. I have teaching and research interests in

intellectual property and alternative dispute
resolution (ADR).(*1) In recent years, I have taught
Copyright and Trademarks on a regular basis. I
began to teach these subjects at a time when thelaw school took steps to enhance the intellectual
property curriculum.
For many years, the IP curriculum at Missouri
consisted of a survey intellectual property course(which included in one course coverage of patents,
copyright, and trademarks). Eventually, separate
courses in patents, copyright, and trademarks wereadded, which were taught on a rotating butinfrequent basis.
There was essentially one
member of the faculty who taught all of theintellectual property law courses.(*2) This in large(*) Associate Professor of Law and Senior Fellow, Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution, University ofMissouri-Columbia, J.D., Member, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators(*1) Generally, ADR is the study of the resolution of disputes by means alternative to traditional court adjudication (forexample, negotiation, mediation, and arbitration). See LEONARD L. RISKIN & JAMES E. WESTBROOK, DISPUTERESOLUTION AND LAWYERS 1-11 (2d ed. 1997). The University of Missouri School of Law is home to the internationallyrenowned Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution, with several faculty members who specialize in ADR.
<http://www.law.missouri.edu/csdr/>. Missouri has a graduate Masters of Law (LL.M.) program in ADR (and is
hopeful of applicants from Japan). Both intellectual property and alternative dispute resolution have received
increasing attention from the legal academy, the practicing bar, and the legal academy. With respect to intellectual
property, Professor William Alford has written:
In our public life, intellectual property went from being a back to front burner issue in part because of a growing
realization of our dependence upon it. This dependence has emanated not only from the fact that ours isincreasingly a service oriented economy, but also as a result of our growing understanding of the importance of newtechnologies.
William P. Alford, How Theory Does--and Does Not-- Matter: American Approaches to Intellectual Property Law in East Asia,
13 UCLA PAC. BASIN L.J. 8, 12 (1994). Regarding ADR, Professors Riskin and Westbrook have noted that "[a]resurgence of interest in alternative methods to prevent and resolve disputes is sweeping across the United States."
RISKIN & WESTBROOK, supra, at 1 & n.1.
For a general discussion of ADR methods to resolve disputes involving intellectual property rights, see Scott H.
Blackmand & Rebecca M. McNeill, Alternative Dispute Resolution in Commercial Intellectual Property Disputes, 47 AM.
U.L. REV. 1709 (1998).
(*2) The patents course was taught by a few years by an adjunct professor, a practicing lawyer in St. Louis, who commuted
to Columbia (about 200 kilometers) once a week.

IIP Bulletin 2004

● 112 ●

part reflected the IP curriculum and teaching facultyat Missouri until a few years ago.(*3)
Recognizing the significant role of intellectual
property in contemporary law practice, about fiveyears ago, Missouri added new courses (e.g.,
Cyberspace law, E-commerce law(*4)) and hired
additional faculty. The discussions among faculty
and administrators toward best enhancing the IP
curricular offerings have been continuing andinformative. Among the factors to be considered
are trends in intellectual property law, faculty
expertise and preference, student demand, career
placement possibilities upon graduation, andlogistical limitations. I would venture to guess that
other law schools in the U.S. have completed are
currently engaged in similar conversations.
It was at about the time my colleagues and I
were discussing the most ideal IP curriculum for
Missouri when I learned of the visiting research
opportunity at the IIP. During my previous visit toJapan in 2002 (as a Fulbright lecturer at Waseda
University), I had learned of the new American-type
law school that would begin in Japan beginning from2004. Given my interests in intellectual property
and in legal education in Japan, I was curious as tohow intellectual property would becovered in thenew law school in Japan.

Research in JapanMy initial task was to gain an understanding of
the intellectual property curriculum in Japan, both in
the faculties of law at the universities where IP has
been taught, and the new ho-gahk dai-gahk-goo-in, agraduate level program in law modeled in significant
part after the U.S. law school. To this end, Iinterviewed a number of professors who teachintellectual property at various universities and who
will continue their role in the new law school,
mostly in Tokyo but also in Osaka and in Kyoto. I
also met with judges of the Tokyo District Court,
and IP practitioners in the private sector. The IIP
library also provided various sources on the subject,mostly in Japanese text that were translated into
English.(*5) Learning more about how and why
intellectual property law is taught in Japan remindedof the U.S. equivalents, which provided for me an
opportunity for a comparative discussion. Such a
discussion invites thought on how the Japanese andU.S. approaches to the teaching and learning ofintellectual property law reflect the norms, histories,and priorities of the respective societies.(*6)

Resulting Report:

Summary

The result of my research is an article entitledIntellectual Property Legal Education in Japan in theNew Millennium: Observations and Lessons from theU.S. The article begins with a brief background of
intellectual property in Japan and the teaching ofintellectual property law in Japanese higher
education in the opening years of the millennium.
In brief, it appears that a key factor in the economic
success of Japan is a sound policy to protect
Indeed, theintellectual property rights.(*7)
Japanese government has acknowledged a plan tocontinue such a policy with references to Japan as a"nation built on intellectual property."(*8) This
discussion is followed by observations and queries
concerning various aspects of intellectual property
education in Japan, from an "outsider."Observations include the emphasis on technology inintellectual property courses.(*9) Questions areraised relating to, among other matters, the(*3) For the results of a survey taken of U.S. intellectual property law faculty relating to the IP curriculum at their respective
law schools, see Roberta Rosenthal Kwall, The Intellectual Property Curriculum: Findings of Professor and Practitioner
Surveys, 49 JOURNAL OF LEGAL EDUCATION 203, 203 (1999) (by Professor Kwall of DePaul University College of Law).
(*4) International intellectual property has also been approved for inclusion in the curriculum.
(*5) E.g., JAPANESE PATENT OFFICE, INTERIM REPORT ON THE INFORMAL GATHERING FOR DISCUSSION CONSIDERING THE FUTUREOF RESEARCH AND TRAINING IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, CURRENT CONDITION ON RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL TRAININGSYSTEM
REGARDINGINTELLECTUALPROPERTY(1997)(Japanesetext),availableat<http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou/toushin/chousa/taisei.htm>; JAPAN INSTITUTE OF INVENTION AND INNOVATION, REPORT FORACTUAL CONDITION SURVEY ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS COURSES AT UNIVERSITIES (1999) (Japanese text)(sponsored by Keirin); RESEARCH PROJECT FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AT UNIVERSITIES (REPORT I): PROGRESS OF
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY RIGHT PROTECTION AT UNIVERSITIES AND NEW ISSUES ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER (March 2001)(Japanese text) (report submitted by Ritsumeikan University, funded by Japanese Patent Office); A STUDY CONCERNINGINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY EDUCATION AT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR the STRENGTHENING OF INDUSTRIALCOMPETITIVENESS AND THE HANDLING OF RESEARCH OUTCOME AND COMPETITION POLICIES (2001) (Japanese text) (studyfunded by Japanese Patent Office, conducted by Tokai University) [hereinafter STUDY CONCERNING INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY EDUCATION]. This study also includes the proceedings of a symposium, "Intellectual Property Education of anEducational Institution," held on November 8, 2001. Id at 24.
(*6) In addition to IP and ADR, I have research interests in law and society in East Asia. Included in this is the relationshipbetween law and culture in an East Asian jurisdiction.
(*7) See Christopher Heath, Japan's Influence on Asian Intellectual Property Systems, in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: JAPAN AND
THE NEW ASIA, CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS (BEST PAPERS & RESOURCE GUIDE) 129 (Oct. 21-22, 1997).
(*8) Strategic Council on Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property Policy Outline, Introduction (July 3, 2002), at<http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/policy/titeki/kettei/020703taikou_e.html>.
(*9) For example, patent law appears to receive much attention in the Japanese curriculum.
● 113 ●IIP Bulletin 2004

distinction between IP courses in the faculty of law
in contrast to those in the new law school, theteaching methods of IP subjects in the new law
school,(*10) the selection of new IP faculty(*11) andtheir research and scholarship responsibilities.
The article then provides a brief description of
intellectual property curriculum in the U.S. law
school,(*12) and highlights specific items ofdiscussion by IP faculty stateside that may be ofinterest to law educators and administrators inJapan. For example, the legal academy in Japan
may be interested in the U.S. discussion relating to
the merits of the "survey" IP course, and the debate
over including intellectual property in the first-year
core curriculum.(*13)
The article was written with the hope thatfaculty in Japan could benefit from the experience ofa more developed and seasoned curriculum in
intellectual property in the U.S., while developing asystem tailored for Japanese objectives, whileAmerican counterparts could also benefit from acomparative discussion in efforts to enhance theirown IP curriculum.

(*10) For example, will law professors in Japan adopt something akin to the "Socratic method" of (professor) question and(student) answer still seen in many U.S. law schools?
(*11) Given the demand of new IP faculty, how will law schools produce new professors to teach the subject?
(*12) As noted above, Professor Kwall's article provides a description of the intellectual property curriculum at various law
schools in the U.S. The article also reports the findings of a survey sent to attorneys practicing in intellectual property,
eliciting their views on the desired IP curriculum. Finally, the article includes suggestions for those schools
contemplating expansion of intellectual property curricula.
(*13) One proponent of such inclusion is Professor William Mock, who writes,
First, it would help to open students' eyes to the value of intellectual and informational property in modern society andbusiness dealings, so that they are better positioned to protect their future clients' interests. Second, it would help
put to rest the stale notion that only engineers become intellectual property lawyers. Third, . . . it would reinforce
the students' awareness of the growing importance of information and similar intangibles.
William B. T. Mock, Informing Law Curricula: Modifying First-Year Courses To Reflect the Information Revolution, 51
JOURNAL OF LEGAL EDUCATION 554, 559 (2001).

IIP Bulletin 2004

● 114 ●

● 115 ●IIP Bulletin 2004