Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The New EU Directive on the Protection of Trade Secrets and Its Implementation

  • Chapter
Legal Tech and the New Sharing Economy

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation ((PLBI))

  • 1197 Accesses

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Study on Trade Secrets and Confidential Business Information in the Internal Market (2013), pp. 12–23.

  2. 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. 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. 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. 5.

    Directive 2016/943/EU from June 6, 2016.

  6. 6.

    Kalbfus (2016), p. 1009; Christoph (2016), p. 465.

  7. 7.

    With reference to Italy and Portugal, see McGuire (2016), pp. 1000–1007.

  8. 8.

    Like in Sweden for instance: Act on the Protection of Trade Secrets (1990).

  9. 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. 10.

    Christoph (2016), p. 465; Koós (2016), p. 224.

  11. 11.

    Different the Commission draft (supra note 2); see also Kalbfus and Harte-Bavendamm (2014), p. 453.

  12. 12.

    Klein and Wegener (2017), p. 394.

  13. 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. 14.

    McGuire (2016), p. 1000, with the main proposal for embedding the protection of secrecy into the system of intellectual property.

  15. 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. 16.

    Souso e Silva (2014), p. 923.

  17. 17.

    Kalbfus (2016), pp. 1009–1011.

  18. 18.

    See also Herrmann (2016), pp. 368–369.

  19. 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. 20.

    Kalbfus (2017), p. 391; Börger and Rein (2017), p. 118; to the special feature in the automotive sector Steinmann and Schubmehl (2017), p. 194.

  21. 21.

    Federal Supreme Court (BGH), judgment of April 27, 2006—case no. I ZR 126/03.

  22. 22.

    See Kalbfus (2011), pp. 65 et seq.; Kalbfus (2017), p. 391.

  23. 23.

    Kalbfus (2017), pp. 391, 392; inapplicable Steinmann and Schubmehl (2017), pp. 194–198, who are aiming for a purely factual protection of secrecy and fail to recognize that the Directive has quite normative ideas about the protection of secrets.

  24. 24.

    Kalbfus (2017), pp. 391 et seq.

  25. 25.

    Steinmann and Schubmehl (2017), pp. 194–197.

  26. 26.

    For the classification of trade secrets as absolute rights, see Köhler (2019), §17 ref. 53; Ohly (2014), pp. 8–9; different opinion Christoph (2016), p. 465; Hauck (2016), pp. 2218–2221; McGuire (2015), pp. 424–426.

  27. 27.

    Christoph (2016), p. 465; Hauck (2016), pp. 2218–2221; McGuire (2015), pp. 424–426.

  28. 28.

    Klein and Wegener (2017), pp. 394–396.

  29. 29.

    See Koós (2016), pp. 224–226.

  30. 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. 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. 32.

    This modification was demanded among others by the Max Planck Institute: Knaak et al. (2014), p. 953.

  33. 33.

    In addition to this: Wiese (2018), pp. 141 et seq.

  34. 34.

    Kalbfus (2016), pp. 1009–1014.

  35. 35.

    Kalbfus (2016), pp. 1009–1014.

  36. 36.

    Imperial Court (RG), judgment of November 22, 1935—case no. II 128/35; also compare Higher Regional Court Hamburg (OLG Hamburg), judgment of October 19, 2000—§U 191/98; in addition to this: Beater (1995), p. 136; Kochmann (2009), p. 140.

  37. 37.

    Eufinger (2016), p. 229; Groß and Platzer (2017), p. 1097.

  38. 38.

    Lapousterle et al. (2015), pp. 8 et seq.

  39. 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. 40.

    Federal Supreme Court (BGH), judgment of February 18, 1977—case no. I ZR 112/75.

  41. 41.

    Regional Court Hamburg (LG Hamburg), judgment of May 8, 2012—case no. 407 HKO 15/12.

  42. 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Beater A (1995) Nachahmen im Wettbewerb: Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zu Paragraph 1 UWG

    Google Scholar 

  • Börger S, Rein S (2017) Step-by-step. In zehn Schritten zu wirksamem Geheimnisschutz. CB 2017(4):118–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Eufinger A (2016) EU-Geheimnisschutzrichtlinie und Schutz von Whistleblowern. ZRP 2016(8):229–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Groß N, Platzer M (2017) Keine Klarlheit beim Umgang mit Informationen und Daten. NZA 17:1097–1104

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauck R (2016) Geheimnisschutz im Zivilprozess—was bringt die neue EU-Richtlinie für das deutsche Recht? NJW 2016(31):2218–2221

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann V (2016) Praktische Auswirkungen der neuen EU-Richtlinie zum Schutz von vertraulichem Know-how und Geschäftsgeheimnissen. CB 2016(10):368–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalbfus B (2011) Know-how-Schutz in Deutschland zwischen Strafrecht und Zivilrecht - welcher Reformbedarf besteht?. Carl Heymanns, Cologne

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalbfu B (2017) Angemessene Geheimhaltungsmaßnahmen nach der Geschäftsgeheimnis-Richtlinie. GRUR-Prax 2017(17):391–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalbfus B (2016) Die EU-Geschäftsgeheimnis-Richtlinie. Welcher Umsetzungsbedarf besteht in Deutschland? GRUR 2016(10):1009–1017

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein F, Wegener T (2017) Wem gehören Geschäftsgeheimnisse? GRUR-Prax 17:394–396

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochmann K (2009) Schutz des “Know-how” gegen ausspähende Produktanalysen (“Reverse Engineering”). De Gruyter, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Köhler H (2019) §17 UWG. In: Köhler et al. (eds) Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, 37th edn. C. H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire MR (2016) Der Schutz von know-how im system des Immaterialgüterrechts. GRUR 2016(10):1000–1008

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire MR (2015) Know-how: Stiefkind, Störenfried oder Sorgenkind? GRUR 2015(5):424–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohly A (2014) Der Geheimnisschutz im deutschen Recht: heutiger Stand und Perspektiven. GRUR 2014(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacini C, Placid R, Wright-Isak C (2008) Fighting economic espionage with state trade secret laws. Int J Law Manage 50(3):121–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinmann S, Schubmehl S (2017) Vertraglicher Geheimnisschutz im Kunden-Lieferanten-Verhältnis – Auswirkungen der EU-Geheimnisschutz-RL am Beispiel der Automobilindustrie. CCZ 5:194–198

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Information, Telecommunication and Media Law, Faculty of Law, University of Münster, Münster, Germany

    Thomas Hoeren

Authors
  1. Thomas Hoeren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Hoeren .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Advanced Studies in Biomedical Innovation Law (CeBIL), Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Marcelo Corrales Compagnucci

  2. Department of Innovation and Digitalisation in Law, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Nikolaus Forgó

  3. Faculty of Law, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Toshiyuki Kono

  4. Faculty of Law, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Shinto Teramoto

  5. Department of Business Law, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Erik P. M. Vermeulen

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation