If your wireless device is for research, development, or a limited trial, you need an Experimental Station Licence (実験局免許) from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (総務省 (MIC)). If it will be sold or operated commercially in Japan, you need Type Certification (技適, "Giteki") instead. The two licences are not interchangeable, and choosing the wrong one stalls a launch or a demo.
What Is the Difference Between an Experimental Station Licence and Type Certification?
An Experimental Station Licence authorizes trial and R&D use only; it does not permit commercial operation. Type Certification is the certification path for commercial sale or commercial use of a wireless device, and the two tracks lead to different outcomes even for the identical unit of hardware.
Any product with wireless transmission capability, meaning Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular, NFC, satellite, or any other RF transmission, falls under the Radio Act (電波法) before it can be legally used in Japan. That baseline requirement is covered in more depth in the general overview of Radio Act certification for wireless devices. What this post addresses is the fork that overview does not: which of the two paths applies once you know your device needs Radio Act clearance, and what happens if a company picks the wrong one or tries to move from one to the other mid-project.
A device running on an Experimental Station Licence that is later sold or deployed commercially in Japan needs to separately obtain Type Certification. One licence does not convert into the other, and there is no administrative shortcut between them. A company that runs a successful pilot under an Experimental Station Licence and then wants to ship the same unit to a paying customer is starting the Type Certification process from zero, not upgrading an existing approval.
Does a Powered Wireless IoT Device Also Need PSE Certification?
Yes, in most cases. Type Certification under the Radio Act is separate from and in addition to certification under the Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Act (電気用品安全法 (PSE)), which applies independently to devices with mains power or batteries.
A powered wireless IoT device, which is to say almost any commercial IoT sensor, gateway, or terminal on the market, typically needs both certifications checked before entry into Japan, not just one. Teams that clear the Radio Act path and assume they are done are the most common source of a late-stage compliance gap. The interaction between the two regimes, and how the 2023 customs reform changed the practical import sequencing for consumer electronics carrying both, is covered in our post on IOR for consumer electronics and IoT devices.
Key points:
(a) Radio Act (電波法) and PSE (電気用品安全法) are two separate certification regimes administered on separate tracks; a device needing one does not automatically clear the other. (b) Experimental Station Licence and Type Certification are mutually exclusive purposes: trial/R&D versus commercial sale/use, with no conversion path between them. (c) MIC offers an informal consultation channel for classification questions before a formal filing is made, which is a reasonable first step when it is unclear which certification path an IoT device needs.
Why Does a Cheap IoT Device Still Trigger an Expensive Licensing Process in Japan?
Because the licensing trigger is the act of transmission, not the retail value of the hardware. A low-cost consumer-grade wireless unit, the kind commonly brought in for a short trial or a trade-show demo, can set off the same formal MIC licensing process as an expensive commercial installation the moment someone powers it on inside Japan.
This is the asymmetry that catches foreign hardware companies off guard most often. A team importing an inexpensive satellite terminal, the kind of Starlink-class hardware now common in field trials, assumes the unit's low price means the compliance burden is proportionally light. It is not. Once the device transmits on Japanese soil, it needs either a formal Experimental Station Licence for trial use or full Type Certification for anything resembling commercial operation, and the Experimental Station Licence route itself is a multi-week formal MIC process, not a same-day registration. Do not assume a device is too cheap to need a licence; the price of the unit has no bearing on whether the transmission trigger applies.
For satellite hardware specifically, there is a lighter alternative worth considering before importing unlicensed equipment at all. Rather than bringing in a terminal and initiating the licensing process from scratch, a company can use a Japan-authorized service subscription, meaning an already-certified terminal operated under an existing authorization, to run the trial or demo without triggering a new licensing filing. This does not work for every use case, particularly where the trial specifically requires testing the imported hardware itself, but for demos where the point is showing connectivity rather than testing a specific unit, it removes the licensing question entirely.
Key points:
(a) The transmission event, not the hardware's purchase price, is what triggers the Radio Act licensing requirement. (b) A formal Experimental Station Licence filing with MIC carries meaningful lead time; plan for a multi-week window before the device is needed on the ground, not a same-week turnaround. (c) A Japan-authorized service subscription on already-certified satellite hardware avoids the import-and-license cycle for demos that do not require the specific imported unit.
How Do I Decide Which Path My Device Needs Before I Ship It?
Start by asking one question honestly: will this device be sold, deployed to end users, or otherwise operated commercially in Japan, or is its entire purpose confined to internal trial and development use. If commercial use is even a near-term possibility, planning for Type Certification from the outset avoids the wasted cost of an Experimental Station Licence that cannot be reused.
When the answer is genuinely unclear, for example a pilot that may or may not convert into a commercial rollout, MIC's informal consultation channel exists precisely for this classification question and is a reasonable first step before any formal filing is made. Getting an informal read before committing to either path is far cheaper than filing the wrong one and starting over. Companies coordinating this alongside customs clearance and import compliance more broadly should also review how ACP services fit around the regulatory filing, since the customs declaration and the Radio Act filing need to stay consistent with each other.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I upgrade my Experimental Station Licence to Type Certification once my trial succeeds?
No. The Experimental Station Licence and Type Certification are separate approvals for separate purposes, and there is no conversion or upgrade mechanism between them. A device moving from trial to commercial use must go through the full Type Certification process independently, regardless of how long it operated successfully under the experimental licence.
Does a low-cost IoT sensor or satellite terminal really need the same licensing scrutiny as expensive equipment?
Yes, because the Radio Act licensing trigger is the device's transmission capability and its actual use in Japan, not its retail price. A sub-thousand-dollar consumer-grade unit that transmits on Japanese soil is subject to the same Experimental Station Licence or Type Certification requirement as far more expensive equipment; price offers no exemption.
Is there a way to run a satellite connectivity demo in Japan without importing and licensing hardware myself?
In many cases, yes. Using a Japan-authorized service subscription on an already-certified terminal lets you run a connectivity demo under an existing authorization rather than importing unlicensed hardware and triggering a new licensing filing. This works well when the demo's purpose is showing connectivity rather than testing the specific imported unit; where the trial requires the exact hardware itself, the import-and-license path is unavoidable.
Conclusion
The Experimental Station Licence and Type Certification serve different purposes and never substitute for each other, so the first decision on any wireless IoT device entering Japan is whether its use is trial or commercial. Getting that fork wrong, or assuming a cheap device escapes scrutiny, produces the timing and cost surprises that derail launch schedules. An informal MIC consultation before filing, and a Japan-authorized service subscription for satellite demos where applicable, are the two lowest-friction ways to avoid both mistakes.
This article is informational only and does not constitute legal, tax, or regulatory advice. Consult a qualified advisor before acting on the content. Last updated: August 2026.