trade secret law

Subscribe to trade secret law

We are looking back on our series where we spotlight international issues in trade secret law under the Belgian Trade Secrets Act.

To claim that major conclusions can be drawn from the dozen decisions handed down since the Trade Secrets Act came into force would not be serious. Nevertheless, listing and comparing these rulings has led to some striking observations.

The number of judgments that we found is limited. There are a number of possible explanations for this. A first explanation could be that some parties whose information has been misappropriated since the Trade Secrets Act have not (yet) determined this. This explanation seems to be confirmed by the fact that in several of the cases we have discussed, a period of three to four years elapsed between the facts giving rise to the claim and the first step taken by the claimant against the alleged infringer.[vii] The limited number of judgments may also be partially explained by the fact that even parties who have established infringement may have subsequently realized how many hurdles there are to bringing a successful claim under the Trade Secrets Act. Finally, it seems that there may well be a significant number of potential claimants who, though being aware of infringement and willing to overcome the hurdles, possess insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the infringer misappropriated their secret information. Although the possibility of a unilateral application through summary proceedings was discussed, a statutory scheme like that for intellectual property rights (the counterfeit search and seizure procedure) would probably allow for smoother gathering of evidence.Continue Reading International Issues in Trade Secret Law Series: A Look Back at Issues Under the Belgian Trade Secrets Act

Last week the United States Senate unanimously approved legislation that would create a private right of action in federal court for trade secret theft. We reported on this legislation — The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2015 – last summer, and explained how it would modify the Economic Espionage Act (EEA), 18 USC Chapter 90. See The Growing Momentum for Federal Trade Secrets Legislation. 
Continue Reading U.S. Senate OKs Federal Trade Secret Bill

On December 7, 2015, Mercedes’ suit against Benjamin Hoyle, one of its former engineers who allegedly breached his employment contract and misappropriated confidential, trade secret information, was made public. Since 2012, Hoyle had been a member of Mercedes’ Performance Engineering Department working on the Mercedes’ High Performance Powertrain (HPP) Limited Formula One (F1) racing engines. Last year, Hoyle informed Mercedes that he would not be renewing his contract set to expire at the end of 2015, and was planning on joining Ferrari.
Continue Reading Vroom vroom! Mercedes v Ferrari-bound Engineer

Capitol Buidling 1
[via Flickr user Glyn Lowe Photoworks]

On Monday November 30, the House demonstrated its resolve to fight high-tech crime such as trade secret theft by passing the Strengthening State and Local Cyber Crime Fighting Act (H.R. 3490). The Act formally establishes the National Computer Forensics Institute, which is located in Hoover, Alabama and has been operating since 2008. Under the Act, the Institute will:

  • Educate law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges on (i) cyber and electronic crimes; (ii) methods for investigating such crimes, including forensically examining computers and mobile devices; and (iii) prosecutorial and judicial challenges related to such crimes and forensic examinations; and
  • Train law enforcement officers to (i) investigate cyber and electronic crimes; (ii) forensically examine computers and mobile devices; and (iii) respond to network intrusions.

Continue Reading Keeping Up with Cybercriminals: House Passes Bill to Formally Establish National Computer Forensics Institute

The International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) recently published the four resolutions that were adopted at its World IP Congress in Rio de Janeiro last month. These resolutions are based on the feedback received throughout 2015 from the national AIPPI-groups around the globe and on the panel discussion at the congress. Hereunder we briefly discuss the resolution on “Question Q247 Trade secrets: overlap with restraint of trade, aspects of enforcement”, which addresses four aspects of trade secret law.

  1. Should trade secret law be curtailed so as to prevent that it becomes an unlawful restraint of trade?

AIPPI finds that many jurisdictions define trade secrets sufficiently narrow so as to avoid free trade- and antitrust issues. AIPPI resolves that although as a general rule trade secret misappropriation should be enjoined, any person should nonetheless be free to make fair use of the general knowledge, skills and experience the acquired while performing their profession.Continue Reading AIPPI Publishes Rio-Resolution and Country Reports on Specific Aspects of Trade Secrets Enforcement