Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“KCM v. Viel”

Decision of the Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) 25 February 2016 – Case No. 189/16

  • Decision • Intellectual Property Law
  • France
  • Published:
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

There is no legal basis for a judicial order allowing only the representing attorney, but not his client, to inspect documents obtained in the course of a seizure and possibly containing trade secrets of the party subject to such seizure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Consortia

Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 145

Additional information

Translation by Leo Lahme.

For a case note on this decision together with the Japanese IP High Court decision “In Camera Proceedings/FOMA” by Christopher Heath, see this issue of IIC at doi:10.1007/s40319-017-0649-z.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 145. “KCM v. Viel”. IIC 48, 977–979 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0650-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0650-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation