Abstract
In June 2018, the deadline for the implementation of a new act reforming the trade secret law expired. The author describes the underlying EU Directive on the protection of trade secrets (Directive (EU) 2016/943, hereinafter “Directive”) and outlines the options of implementation. Special attention is paid to the producer’s liability in accordance with Article 4 (5) of the Directive.
Keywords
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Study on Trade Secrets and Confidential Business Information in the Internal Market (2013), pp. 12–23.
- 2.
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure.
- 3.
Report on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of disclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure.
- 4.
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure—Analysis of the final compromise text with a view to agreement.
- 5.
Directive 2016/943/EU from June 6, 2016.
- 6.
- 7.
With reference to Italy and Portugal, see McGuire (2016), pp. 1000–1007.
- 8.
Like in Sweden for instance: Act on the Protection of Trade Secrets (1990).
- 9.
Different McGuire (2016), pp. 1000–1008, who naturally acts on the assumption that Section 17 of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) must be overruled or changed; Kalbfus (2016), pp. 1009–1016, pleads for a general law with reserved civil provisions and for the incorporation of the criminal law especially in the event of blatant intentional form of breaches in the general law.
- 10.
- 11.
Different the Commission draft (supra note 2); see also Kalbfus and Harte-Bavendamm (2014), p. 453.
- 12.
Klein and Wegener (2017), p. 394.
- 13.
Kalbfus (2016), pp. 1009–1011, presents a slightly different thesis, according to which the German jurisdiction of Section 17 of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) essentially complies with the Directive. Nevertheless, he considers the transposition of the Directive into a special German law as necessary.
- 14.
McGuire (2016), p. 1000, with the main proposal for embedding the protection of secrecy into the system of intellectual property.
- 15.
Federal Supreme Court (BGH), judgment of February 23, 2012—case no. I ZR 136/10; Federal Supreme Court (BGH), judgment of February 12, 1980—case no. KZR 7/79.
- 16.
Souso e Silva (2014), p. 923.
- 17.
Kalbfus (2016), pp. 1009–1011.
- 18.
See also Herrmann (2016), pp. 368–369.
- 19.
Pacini et al. (2008), p. 121, with the presentation of a “trade secret compliance plan” including different measures that can be taken as well as different variables that have to be considered depending on the company.
- 20.
- 21.
Federal Supreme Court (BGH), judgment of April 27, 2006—case no. I ZR 126/03.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
Kalbfus (2017), pp. 391 et seq.
- 25.
Steinmann and Schubmehl (2017), pp. 194–197.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
Klein and Wegener (2017), pp. 394–396.
- 29.
See Koós (2016), pp. 224–226.
- 30.
Federal Supreme Court (BGH), judgment of May 3, 2001—case no. I ZR 153/99; Federal Supreme Court (BGH), judgment of March 15, 1955—case no. I ZR 111/53; Federal Labor Court (BAG), judgment of June 15, 1993—case no. 9 AZR 558/91; Federal Labor Court (BAG), judgment of December 15, 1987—case no. 3 AZR 474/86.
- 31.
Kalbfus (2016), pp. 1009–1014, sees Section 18 of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) as a counterpart to the new regulation and demands its abolition in favor of a general regulation of trade secrets.
- 32.
This modification was demanded among others by the Max Planck Institute: Knaak et al. (2014), p. 953.
- 33.
In addition to this: Wiese (2018), pp. 141 et seq.
- 34.
Kalbfus (2016), pp. 1009–1014.
- 35.
Kalbfus (2016), pp. 1009–1014.
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.
Lapousterle et al. (2015), pp. 8 et seq.
- 39.
Federal Labor Court (BAG), judgment of December 7, 2006—case no. 2 AZR 400/05; implementation of the case law of the Federal Constitution Court (BVerfG), judgment of July 2, 2001—case no. I BvR 2049/00; in the decision of the Federal Labor Court (BAG), judgment of July 3, 2003—case no. 2 AZR 235/02; Ohly (2014), pp. 1–7.
- 40.
Federal Supreme Court (BGH), judgment of February 18, 1977—case no. I ZR 112/75.
- 41.
Regional Court Hamburg (LG Hamburg), judgment of May 8, 2012—case no. 407 HKO 15/12.
- 42.
It is not intended to deal with the procedural changes made in the Directive, such as the correction of the Düsseldorf model.
References
Christoph A (2016) EU-Richtlinie zum Schutz vertraulichen Know-hows—Wann kommt das neue deutsche Recht, wie sieht es aus, was ist noch offen? GRUR-Prax 2016(21):465–467
Beater A (1995) Nachahmen im Wettbewerb: Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zu Paragraph 1 UWG
Börger S, Rein S (2017) Step-by-step. In zehn Schritten zu wirksamem Geheimnisschutz. CB 2017(4):118–123
Eufinger A (2016) EU-Geheimnisschutzrichtlinie und Schutz von Whistleblowern. ZRP 2016(8):229–231
Groß N, Platzer M (2017) Keine Klarlheit beim Umgang mit Informationen und Daten. NZA 17:1097–1104
Hauck R (2016) Geheimnisschutz im Zivilprozess—was bringt die neue EU-Richtlinie für das deutsche Recht? NJW 2016(31):2218–2221
Herrmann V (2016) Praktische Auswirkungen der neuen EU-Richtlinie zum Schutz von vertraulichem Know-how und Geschäftsgeheimnissen. CB 2016(10):368–370
Kalbfus B (2011) Know-how-Schutz in Deutschland zwischen Strafrecht und Zivilrecht - welcher Reformbedarf besteht?. Carl Heymanns, Cologne
Kalbfu B (2017) Angemessene Geheimhaltungsmaßnahmen nach der Geschäftsgeheimnis-Richtlinie. GRUR-Prax 2017(17):391–393
Kalbfus B (2016) Die EU-Geschäftsgeheimnis-Richtlinie. Welcher Umsetzungsbedarf besteht in Deutschland? GRUR 2016(10):1009–1017
Kalbfus B, Harte-Bavendamm H (2014) Protokoll der Sitzung des Fachausschusses für Wettbewerbs- und Markenrecht zum Richtlinienvorschlag über den Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen. GRUR 5:453–457
Klein F, Wegener T (2017) Wem gehören Geschäftsgeheimnisse? GRUR-Prax 17:394–396
Knaak R, Kur A, Hilty R (2014) Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 3 June 2014 on the Proposal of the European Commission for a Directive on the Protection of Undisclosed Know-How and Business Information (Trade Secrets) Against Their Unlawful Acquisition, Use and Disclosure of 28 November 2013, COM(2013) 813 Final. Int Rev Intellect Property Competition Law 45(8):953–967
Kochmann K (2009) Schutz des “Know-how” gegen ausspähende Produktanalysen (“Reverse Engineering”). De Gruyter, Berlin
Köhler H (2019) §17 UWG. In: Köhler et al. (eds) Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, 37th edn. C. H. Beck, Munich
Koós C (2016) Die europäische Geschäftsgeheimnis-Richtlinie—ein gelungener Wurf? Schutz von Know-how und Geschäftsinformationen—Änderungen im deutschen Wettbewerbsrecht. MMR 2016(4):224–228
Lapousterle J et al (2015) What Protection for Trade Secrets in the European Union? CEIPI´s observations on the proposal for a directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information, in Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies Research Paper Series. Res Pap 02:1–15
McGuire MR (2016) Der Schutz von know-how im system des Immaterialgüterrechts. GRUR 2016(10):1000–1008
McGuire MR (2015) Know-how: Stiefkind, Störenfried oder Sorgenkind? GRUR 2015(5):424–436
Ohly A (2014) Der Geheimnisschutz im deutschen Recht: heutiger Stand und Perspektiven. GRUR 2014(1):1–11
Pacini C, Placid R, Wright-Isak C (2008) Fighting economic espionage with state trade secret laws. Int J Law Manage 50(3):121–135
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure, COM/2013/0813 final—2013/0402 (COD). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013PC0813&from=de. Accessed 22 May 2019
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure—analysis of the final compromise text with a view to agreement. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15382-2015-REV-1/en/pdf. Accessed 22 May 2019
Report on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of disclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (2015). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2015-0199_EN.html. Accessed 22 May 2019
Souso e Silva N (2014) What exactly is a trade secret under the proposed directive? J Intellect Property Law Pract 9(11):923–932
Steinmann S, Schubmehl S (2017) Vertraglicher Geheimnisschutz im Kunden-Lieferanten-Verhältnis – Auswirkungen der EU-Geheimnisschutz-RL am Beispiel der Automobilindustrie. CCZ 5:194–198
Study on Trade Secrets and Confidential Business Information in the Internal Market (2013) MARKT/2011/128/D. https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/14838/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf. Accessed 22 May 2019
Tonell M (2017) Sweden. In: Këllezi P, Kilpatrick B, Kobel P (eds) Abuse of dominant position and globalization & protection and disclosure of trade secrets and know-how. Springer, Berlin, pp 541–556
Wiese E (2018) Die EU-Richtlinie über den Schutz vertraulichen know-hows und vertraulicher Geschäftsinformationen. Inhalt und Auswirkung auf den gesetzlichen Schutz des Unternehmensgeheimnisses. Peter Lang, Bern
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hoeren, T. (2020). The New EU Directive on the Protection of Trade Secrets and Its Implementation. In: Corrales Compagnucci, M., Forgó, N., Kono, T., Teramoto, S., Vermeulen, E.P.M. (eds) Legal Tech and the New Sharing Economy. Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1350-3_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1350-3_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-1349-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-1350-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)