In our next post on the EU Trade Secrets Directive 2016/943, we turn to the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, the EU Trade Secrets Directive was implemented in 2018 by the Act on the Protection of Trade Secrets (Wet bescherming bedrijfsgeheimen) and led to amendments to Dutch procedural law including those related to confidentiality clubs. For example, access to alleged trade secrets introduced in proceedings is granted to at least one person of the opposing party and that party’s lawyer under confidentiality restrictions. (Article 1019ib, Dutch Code of Civil Procedure). Depending on the nature of the trade secret, however, the court may order that access to certain documents be limited to only a lawyer or another authorized representative but not a representative of the opposing party. (Article 22a(3), Dutch Code of Civil Procedure).
Continue Reading

The EU Trade Secrets Directive 2016/943 contains a variety of confidentiality protections expressly protecting the publicity of the proceedings because “[t]he prospect of losing the confidentiality of a trade secret in the course of legal proceedings often deters legitimate trade secret holders from instituting legal proceedings to defend their trade secrets, thus jeopardising the effectiveness of the measures, procedures and remedies provided for.  For this reason, it is necessary to establish, subject to appropriate safeguards ensuring the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, specific requirements aimed at protecting the confidentiality of the litigated trade secret in the course of legal proceedings instituted for its defence.”  Article 9 of the Directive specifically required EU member states to implement rules creating such protections, such as by restricting access to hearings and creating so-called “confidentiality rings” or “confidentiality clubs” limiting the dissemination of confidential information and documents to designated persons.

The United Kingdom’s implementing law, the Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2018, requires that the court have the power to restrict access to documents containing alleged trade secrets and to hearings. s. 10(5).  There is already significant maturity in the kinds of confidentiality protections available in English litigation so this is unlikely to lead to significant change.  Although the principle of open justice is a fundamental feature of the legal system and departures are permitted only if necessary in the interests of justice, exceptions and restrictions to openness and respect for confidentiality are actually already well-established in the United Kingdom. See McKillen v Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd and others [2012] EWHC 1158 (Ch).
Continue Reading

A recent International Trade Commission (ITC) case shows that, although rarely used, the ITC remains a viable option for parties pursuing trade secret misappropriation claims. Trade secret claims can be brought under Section 337(a)(1)(A)’s catch-all for other “unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles”—often called “non-statutory” claims—and can result in

Crowell & Moring Senior Counsel Byron Brown and Associate Robert Kornweiss contributed to the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law, Trade Secrets and Interferences with Contracts Committee’s Annual Trade Secret Law Report 2018, which summarizes last year’s most notable trade secret cases.

To learn more about these trade secret cases and their significance, please click 

Curvature Inc. brought suit against British contractor Cantel Computer Services LTD (“Cantel”) for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive trade practices, tortious interference, and violations of the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act in North Carolina Business Court, a special forum within North Carolina’s Superior Court that handles cases involving complex and significant issues of

Huawei Technologies Co., the world’s largest telecommunications company, and CNEX Labs Inc. went to trial this week in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas over dueling allegations of trade secret theft relating to semiconductor chip technology behind solid-state drives. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al v. Huang et al, No.

On April 23rd, 2019, China’s Standing Committee on the National People’s Congress adopted amendments to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, significantly strengthening China’s protection of trade secrets. The bolstering of intellectual property safeguards in China comes in advance of important trade negotiations between China and the international community, including the United States. The changes to the

Last month, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the legislative agency tasked to conduct auditing, evaluation, and investigative services for the U.S. Congress, released a report regarding the sustainment of operational system software for Department of Defense (DoD) weapon systems. Software sustainment is essential to the operations of DoD weapon systems, including tactical and combat vehicles,

Despite continued trade talks with China, the federal government continues to aggressively pursue efforts to prevent and hold Chinese companies accountable for trade secret theft and economic espionage. As described below, in the last month alone, the U.S. Government has taken three very decisive actions in combating the threat.

  1. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee announced the

In West Virginia, legislators are moving forward a bill that would criminalize trade secret theft. On February 26th 2019, the West Virginia House of Delegates passed H.B. 2014 with a 98-1 approval that would create criminal penalties for stealing trade secret or other intellectual property. The bill is now headed to the West Virginia Senate