Fresh EUIPO Report on trade secrets and patents – Finnish companies top the list in use of trade secrets

Last month, the EUIPO published an interesting report titled “Protecting innovation thru trade secrets and patents: determinants for European Union firms” (“the Report”). Seven findings have been included in Executive Summary, and in this post I will dig into the three findings I find most interesting (No. 2, 4 and 5 in the Report).

“The use of trade secrets for protecting innovations is higher than the use of patents by most types of companies, in most economic sectors and in all Member States”

Upon first reading, I didn’t find this very surprising. Namely, virtually all companies have some kind of trade secrets like e.g., sales or related data, but only some companies are innovative enough to be granted patents even if they would apply. But what surprised me somewhat was that Finland (where I reside and practice law) was the country where trade secrets would be used the most compared to all other countries in Europe (page 28 of the Report). I found this surprising, since while every serious IP lawyer must know trade secret law, the topic is not widely debated in Finland. In Finland, as in many other countries in the world, trade secrets is still the “Cinderella” of IP.

Based on the Report, large companies typically utilize both trade secrets and patents on a larger scale compared to SMEs. Nevertheless, Finnish SMEs are the heaviest users of trade secret protection in Europe, based on the report (page 30 of the Report). Namely, a staggering 76,8 % of Finnish SMEs use trade secrets to protect trade innovations according to the Report. Innovative SMEs in Finland use trade secrets 2,5 more than patents. This may of course be rooted in several different factual and legal aspects. By way of example, patents are of course more expensive and the threshold may not always be met (e.g., novelty and inventive step). Also, patents have a fixed term (20 years), while trade secrets do not. Continue reading “Fresh EUIPO Report on trade secrets and patents – Finnish companies top the list in use of trade secrets”

Reverse burden of proof and trade secrets in patent litigation – Part two

 

In my previous post (here), I discussed the reverse burden of proof on an international level and the potential tension which could emerge between the patent and trade secrets regimes in this context. In this post, I will turn the focus to Europe and discuss the regional provisions as well as the relevant provisions of the UPC Agreement.

The Enforcement Directive and the Trade Secrets Directive

There are a few provisions in the Enforcement Directive on confidentiality in court proceedings. The need to preserve confidentiality in intellectual property litigation is recognized in the recital of the directive (Recital 20). In addition, a few provisions (Arts. 6 (2), 7 (1) and 8 (2) (e)) of the directive deal with the protection of confidential information in IP litigation.

The drafters of the directive have recognized the need to protect the confidential information of the adverse party. But what is to be noted is that the Enforcement Directive does not contain any provision on the reverse burden of proof in patent litigation, or the protection of trade secrets in these situations.

The Trade Secrets Directive includes a specific provision (Art. 9) on the protection of trade secrets in litigation concerning the unlawful use or disclosure of a secret (See my post on trade secret litigation here). Ergo, said provision is not applicable in patent litigation. However, Art. 9 of the Trade Secrets Directive could provide for certain general examples of how trade secrets could be protected in patent litigation. These include restricting access to documents, restricting access to hearings, and providing non-confidential versions of judgments. There should for example be no immediate obstacle for a national legislator to include similar provisions in national laws.

Continue reading “Reverse burden of proof and trade secrets in patent litigation – Part two”

The U.S. Supreme Court judgment on forum shopping; TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands LLC

Historically, defendants in patent infringement litigation lawsuits in the U.S. have often been sued in so-called “plaintiff-friendly” courts such as the Eastern District of Texas even when there is little or no connection between the legal issue and the jurisdiction in which they are to be litigated. This issue is known as forum shopping. Regarding this issue, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a very important judgment on 22nd May, 2017. The judgment could make it more difficult for a patent holder to file a lawsuit in plaintiff-friendly courts.  Continue reading “The U.S. Supreme Court judgment on forum shopping; TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands LLC”

Peruvian patent litigation on infringement and invalidation: A sui generis case of bifurcation

fork-in-the-road

Guest post by Diego F. Ortega*

The Andean Community is the result of the seeking of the balanced and harmonious development of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, which in May 26, 1969 signed the Cartagena Agreement, laying the groundwork for the creation of a subregional community initially known as Andean Pact and later renamed as Andean Community. In order to achieve the said objective, the Andean Community promotes a continuous process of integration and economic and social cooperation. In particular, this process of integration involves the need of having common rules as to matters that foster the unification of the market, such as industrial property rights.

The industrial property system within the Andean Community was established by the “Decision 486”, which aims to guarantee a rigorous scrutiny as to the fulfillment of the requirements needed for the granting of a patent. Thus, Andean Community does not provide only for the mandatory performance of a substantive examination carried out by the national patent authorities of its Member Countries, but also for mechanisms which allow third parties to prove that an invention does not meet the legal requirements, seeking the denial of the patent (through a pre-grant opposition request) or, if the patent is granted, its revocation (through an invalidation request). Continue reading “Peruvian patent litigation on infringement and invalidation: A sui generis case of bifurcation”

Reverse burden of proof and trade secrets in patent litigation – Part one

litigation and family attorneys

Background – lack of protection

For a long time in many European countries, pharmaceutical compounds were not eligible for patent protection. Prior to the adoption of TRIPS, there were actually 22 countries in which the protection of pharmaceutical compounds was unavailable. Innovative pharmaceutical developers were only able to indirectly try to protect their pharmaceutical product by protecting the process for manufacturing the product. At the time, some states made efforts to compensate for the lack of product protection in different ways. In Finland, you could apply for a so called “analogous process patent”, by which you were able to get a patent for if you had developed a new product, but the scope of protection was, odd as it may seem, nevertheless restricted to the manufacturing process.

Continue reading “Reverse burden of proof and trade secrets in patent litigation – Part one”

The Crispr Cas9 battle reaches oral arguments before the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the stakes are favoring the Broad Institute

588x358-crispr-cas9

Guest post by Lucia Tamayo Del Portillo*

In early 2012, a group of scientists from the University of California Berkeley (“UC”) led by Dr. Jennifer Doudna, in collaboration with the University of Vienna and fellow researcher Emmanuel Charpentier, filed the first patent application for a revolutionary gene-editing tool called Crispr Cas9.  The Crispr and its associated protein Cas9 is a natural existing response to immunological hazard that can be found in bacteria. By a combination of complex biochemical interactions, bacteria is able to identify foreign DNA, cleave to it, and then induce a break on the DNA strand, causing its instant deactivation. UC’s first patent application was broad and mainly tested in rather simple living organisms such as bacteria. Few months after this application, the Broad Institute (“Broad”) along with the MIT and the Harvard College, filed another patent application over the Crispr Cas9. Dr. Feng Zhang commanded the main research team behind this invention. This subsequent application was limited to the use of the Crispr Cas9 method in eukaryotic organisms for example, plants and animals. Continue reading “The Crispr Cas9 battle reaches oral arguments before the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the stakes are favoring the Broad Institute”