• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

BGH: Order of secrecy refused – and then what?

9. August 2021

If the order of secrecy is refused pursuant to section 174 (3) GVG, there is no right of appeal against this order, the BGH has ruled with regard to secrecy in court and the German Act on the Protection of Trade Secrets (GeschGehG).

Since 2019, the new Act on the Protection of Trade Secrets (GeschGehG) has been in force in Germany, we reported. In addition to the question of what is meant by ‘reasonable’ secrecy measures in practice, secrecy itself is of course a central issue, and in particular secrecy in court. The Federal Supreme Court has already given case law on this (BGH, IV ZB 8/20).

Accordingly, paragraph 5 of the Act on the Protection of Trade Secrets differs from the provisions in the German Judicature Act (GVG) pursuant to § 174 (3) GVG: No appeal is admissible against an order refusing to order secrecy pursuant to § 174 (3) GVG, ruled the BGH. The German GeschGehG does not change this. This is because a defendant’s application for an order of secrecy only has the significance of a suggestion, which has no procedural function.

A decision that is incontestable according to the law cannot be challenged by admission, the court explained and referred to corresponding earlier decisions (inter alia BGH XII ZB 664/10, FamRZ 2013). Such a case also exists in the case of a decision to reject the order of secrecy, the BGH ruled. If the order of secrecy is refused pursuant to § 174 (3) GVG, there is no right of appeal. The immediate appeal was not admissible.

Order of secrecy refused – no immediate appeal admissible

Indeed, in German law § 174 (3) GVG provides for the admissibility of an (immediate) appeal against a decision ordering secrecy – but not against the non-ordering of a secrecy obligation. However, the Federal Supreme Court left no doubt that an immediate appeal cannot be lodged against a refusal of secrecy. This was because an immediate appeal was not admissible for the reason, that the decision did not require a formal application. The court explained that the defendant’s application for an order of secrecy only has the character of a suggestion, which does not have a procedural function.

Moreover, the immediate appeal was not to be allowed because this would be necessary with regard to the constitutional protection of trade and business secrets, the requirement of effective legal protection or the principle of procedural equality of arms.

Trade Secrets: No disclosure to the plaintiff

Moreover, the defendant could have protected itself from disclosure of its business and trade secrets by not submitting a copy of the documents for forwarding to the plaintiff’s side until the decision ordering the confidentiality obligation had become final – although the content of these documents would then not be considered in the final decision due to the plaintiff’s lack of a right to be heard (pursuant to BGH, Akteneinsicht XXIV, decision of 14 January 2020 – X ZR 33/19).

If in such a case essential documents cannot be used in the decision-making process and the decision is therefore made to the disadvantage of the defendant, one still has the opportunity to be heard (see BGH, I ZB 118/07). By filing an appeal against the final decision, the review by the appellate court can be demanded. In doing so, it can be asserted that one was hindered in the own submission by an erroneous non-order of secrecy and thus one’s right to be heard was violated.

A look at EU law on confidentiality

In July 2019, the European Court (Court of First Instance, CFI) ruled on the question of whether a pharmaceutical company may prohibit public access to documents submitted for marketing authorisation of the medicinal product.

The background to this case was a shareholder lawsuit brought against Intercept Pharmaceuticals in a US court in September 2017 (“the DeSmet lawsuit”). Intercept was interested to keep secret the disclosure of information requested by the EMA, which could be useful in the context of its lawsuit in the United States, and referred to Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, according to which exceptions to publication exist, especially in non-European court proceedings. But in vain; this exception only applies to documents produced in the context of specific pending court proceedings, the CFI ruled, or exceptionally to documents that were not produced in the context of specific court proceedings but nevertheless contain legal positions that later became the subject of such proceedings.

Protection of Trade Secrets is an issue for you?

Our lawyers have many years of expertise in patent and contract law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property. We are authorised to represent you before any court – in Germany and also internationally.

Please contact us if you are interested.


 

Sources:

BGH, IV ZB 8/20

Image:

TayebMEZAHDIA | pixabay | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag iconAct on the Protection of Trade Secrets,  BGH,  BGH leading decision,  disclosure,  disclosure secret,  disclosure trade secret,  GeschGehG,  GVG,  Judicature Act (GVG),  order of secrecy,  order of secrecy refused,  protection of trade secrets,  secrecy,  secrecy in court

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Patent Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

19. January 2022
Computer Data identification declared invalid

Computer Data identification declared invalid

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.