Proportionality of Trade Secret Remedies in European Union – In Comparison with Patent Law Enforcement

Author:

Mylly Ulla-MaijaORCID

Abstract

AbstractIn academic discourse it has been pointed out that many European courts do not pay sufficient attention to assessing the proportionality of patent law remedies. Article 3 of the Enforcement Directive (IPRED), which harmonizes the remedies for all intellectual property rights (IPRs), requires that remedies be proportionate. However, it seems that this requirement is often overlooked, with more attention being paid to the rest of Art. 3, namely the requirements that remedies be efficient and dissuasive. This article contributes to the discussion on the potential over-enforcement of IPRs, but focuses in particular on analyzing the remedies available under the Trade Secret Directive (TSD). Special attention will be paid to the explicit proportionality factors under the TSD. The availability of the bona fide defense under the TSD will also be analyzed. In this article, comparisons will be made between remedies under patent law and those under trade secret law. This article argues that the trade secret regime differs from the patent regime. Therefore, balancing the various interests under the TSD proportionality factors and the bona fide defense is more important under the trade secret regime than under the patent regime. This article seeks both to identify the differences between the two regimes and to dissect possibilities for a more balanced approach to enforcement practices under the IPRED for patent rights.

Funder

Hanken School of Economics

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Law,Political Science and International Relations

Reference43 articles.

1. Aplin T (2021) The limits of trade secret protection in the EU. In: Andeen S, Rademacher C, Ohly A (eds) Research handbook on information law and governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 174–194

2. Bently L (2013) Trade secrets: intellectual property but not property? In: Howe R, Griffiths J (eds) Concepts of property in intellectual property law. Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law (21). Cambridge University Press, pp 60–93. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107300880

3. Bone RG (2006) Secondary liability for trade secret misappropriation: comment. Santa Clara Comput High Technol Law J 22(3):529–546

4. Bone RG (2011) Trade secrecy, innovation and the requirement of reasonable secrecy precautions. In: Dreyfuss RC, Strandburg KJ (eds) The law and theory of trade secrets. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 46–76

5. Bruun N, Schovsbo J (2020) Implementation of the Trade Secrets Directive in the Nordic countries. In: Schovsbo J, Minssen T, Riis T, (eds) The harmonization and protection of trade secrets in the EU: an appraisal of the EU Directive. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 85–102

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Trade Secrets and the Data Act;IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law;2024-03

2. In Search of a Time Limit for the Trade Secret Right;Kreation Innovation Märkte - Creation Innovation Markets;2024

3. The Role of EU Trade Secrets Law in the Data Economy: An Empirical Analysis;IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law;2023-05-10

4. Departing Employees, Confidentiality Clauses and European Trade Secret Protection;IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law;2023-03-29

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3