King's College London

Research portal

A critical evaluation of the proposed Trade Secrets Directive’

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

A critical evaluation of the proposed Trade Secrets Directive’. / Aplin, Tanya Frances.

In: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY QUARTERLY, 2014, p. 257-279.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Aplin, TF 2014, 'A critical evaluation of the proposed Trade Secrets Directive’', INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY QUARTERLY, pp. 257-279. <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2467946>

APA

Aplin, T. F. (2014). A critical evaluation of the proposed Trade Secrets Directive’. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY QUARTERLY, 257-279. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2467946

Vancouver

Aplin TF. A critical evaluation of the proposed Trade Secrets Directive’. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY QUARTERLY. 2014;257-279.

Author

Aplin, Tanya Frances. / A critical evaluation of the proposed Trade Secrets Directive’. In: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY QUARTERLY. 2014 ; pp. 257-279.

Bibtex Download

@article{863c0254ae264551b83cc65fbf51d5bf,
title = "A critical evaluation of the proposed Trade Secrets Directive{\textquoteright}",
abstract = "The European Commission issued a proposed Trade Secrets Directive on 28 November 2013, with the aim of tackling the legal fragmentation in the protection of trade secrets that currently exists in the European Union. Key divergences between Member States include: the legal mechanism used to regulate trade secrets (criminal or civil law and within civil law, whether unfair competition, tort, contract or labour law); the definition of trade secrets; whether trade secrets are classified as intellectual property (thus affecting the application of the Enforcement Directive); criminal penalties and the procedural mechanisms for protecting the confidentiality of trade secrets during litigation. Such legal fragmentation is seen as problematic, because it apparently makes enforcement opaque and expensive and also leads to sub-optimal investment in cross-border innovation activities within the EU. This paper undertakes an evaluation of the proposed Directive, along with the 'General Approach' put forward by the General Secretariat of the European Council to the Council on 26 May 2014. It argues that we should be skeptical of claims that harmonization will bring substantial economic gains and that only a modest amount of harmonization is likely to ensue from implementation of this Directive, should it be adopted. This is because several of the obligations contain uncertainties and Member States will have the freedom to implement these obligations according to whichever mechanisms they prefer. As a result, we are likely to see a patchwork of laws continuing to regulate the protection of trade secrets in the EU and a series of references to the European Court of Justice for many years to come.",
author = "Aplin, {Tanya Frances}",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
pages = "257--279",
journal = "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY QUARTERLY",
issn = "1364-906X",
publisher = "Sweet and Maxwell",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - A critical evaluation of the proposed Trade Secrets Directive’

AU - Aplin, Tanya Frances

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The European Commission issued a proposed Trade Secrets Directive on 28 November 2013, with the aim of tackling the legal fragmentation in the protection of trade secrets that currently exists in the European Union. Key divergences between Member States include: the legal mechanism used to regulate trade secrets (criminal or civil law and within civil law, whether unfair competition, tort, contract or labour law); the definition of trade secrets; whether trade secrets are classified as intellectual property (thus affecting the application of the Enforcement Directive); criminal penalties and the procedural mechanisms for protecting the confidentiality of trade secrets during litigation. Such legal fragmentation is seen as problematic, because it apparently makes enforcement opaque and expensive and also leads to sub-optimal investment in cross-border innovation activities within the EU. This paper undertakes an evaluation of the proposed Directive, along with the 'General Approach' put forward by the General Secretariat of the European Council to the Council on 26 May 2014. It argues that we should be skeptical of claims that harmonization will bring substantial economic gains and that only a modest amount of harmonization is likely to ensue from implementation of this Directive, should it be adopted. This is because several of the obligations contain uncertainties and Member States will have the freedom to implement these obligations according to whichever mechanisms they prefer. As a result, we are likely to see a patchwork of laws continuing to regulate the protection of trade secrets in the EU and a series of references to the European Court of Justice for many years to come.

AB - The European Commission issued a proposed Trade Secrets Directive on 28 November 2013, with the aim of tackling the legal fragmentation in the protection of trade secrets that currently exists in the European Union. Key divergences between Member States include: the legal mechanism used to regulate trade secrets (criminal or civil law and within civil law, whether unfair competition, tort, contract or labour law); the definition of trade secrets; whether trade secrets are classified as intellectual property (thus affecting the application of the Enforcement Directive); criminal penalties and the procedural mechanisms for protecting the confidentiality of trade secrets during litigation. Such legal fragmentation is seen as problematic, because it apparently makes enforcement opaque and expensive and also leads to sub-optimal investment in cross-border innovation activities within the EU. This paper undertakes an evaluation of the proposed Directive, along with the 'General Approach' put forward by the General Secretariat of the European Council to the Council on 26 May 2014. It argues that we should be skeptical of claims that harmonization will bring substantial economic gains and that only a modest amount of harmonization is likely to ensue from implementation of this Directive, should it be adopted. This is because several of the obligations contain uncertainties and Member States will have the freedom to implement these obligations according to whichever mechanisms they prefer. As a result, we are likely to see a patchwork of laws continuing to regulate the protection of trade secrets in the EU and a series of references to the European Court of Justice for many years to come.

M3 - Article

SP - 257

EP - 279

JO - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY QUARTERLY

JF - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY QUARTERLY

SN - 1364-906X

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454