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

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • 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. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Private notices about trade secret are regarded as breach

17. December 2018

A betrayal of trade and company secrets also exists if a former employee only has private notes of his former activity. The acquired know-how may only be retrieved as a memory in the mind, the German Federal Court of Justice states in its ruling on trade secrets.

trade secretThe German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) emphasized in its decision on trade secrets (I ZR 118 / 16) that employees are not allowed to take any information about the development of technologies made during a job to a new workplace in any way in writing. The acquired know-how may only be retrieved as a memory in the mind. As soon as an employee has written documents containing information on the trade secret of the former employer, he also obtains the trade secret without authorisation if his experience enables him to build up or use a technology protected as a trade secret without using documents.  For this is a violation within the meaning of § 17 UWG (German Law against Unfair Competition) and also applies if it concerns private records or a file stored on the private computer, the BGH ruled.

The facts

The applicant is part of the F. -Medical-Care group, the former employee is a chemist and was employed by the applicant’s legal predecessor from November 1990 to June 1993 as production manager for the ‘membrane production’ sector. In this context, he had access to technical drawings and data sets for the manufacture of nozzles and a spinning plant with nozzle heads. In his employment contract he was bound to secrecy, and the termination agreement of 1993, which terminated his employment, also contained an undertaking to maintain secrecy with regard to all business and company secrets. Since July 1993, the defendant has been working for a company also co-defendant, now as its managing director.

Acquired know-how may only be retrieved as a memory in the mind

The BGH found that there was no realistic possibility that the defendant, after leaving the applicant’s company, would have been in a position to rework the detailed dimensions and arrangements of the spinning plant from its head. The arrangement and design of the spinning nozzles on the individual nozzle blocks represented the core technology of the entire plant. The nozzle block itself also belonged to the “key equipment”.

Obviousness or betrayal of secrets?

The defendants are not in a position to substantiate their claim that their spinning equipment is based on their own experience, corresponds to the state of the art or is obvious, the court explained. In the guiding principle of the verdict on the betrayal of secrets, the BGH emphasised that for protection as a trade secret it is important whether the relevant fact can only be found, made accessible and thus usable by the entrepreneur with a great deal of time or expense – even if it belongs to the state of the art. Even if the general state of the art is regularly known through publication, an obviousness of the underlying production methods cannot be assumed without further ado. An obviousness – which would exclude the secret character of a fact – only exists if the fact is generally known and also outside the production plant in which the trade secret exists.

BGH contradicts the German court of appeal

The judgment of BGH contradicts the German court of appeal and the complainant has now been proved right. This case was therefore referred back to the Court of Appeal by the BGH for a new hearing and decision.

Would you also like to protect your product or product prozess?

Then please do not hesitate to contact us. Our patent attorneys and attorneys at law are experienced and highly qualified in all areas of intellectual property law, both nationally and internationally.

Request your call-back without any obligations!

CAT-call_en

 

Sources:

BGH I ZR 118/16

Picture:

itspowerex /pixabay.com / CCO License  

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag iconPatent,  BGH,  Invention,  state of the art,  trade secret,  company secrets,  inventer,  former employee,  company,  betrayal of secrets,  obviousness,  manufacture,  technical,  Know-How

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
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • Action against a patent already expired 26. February 2021
  • Design protection in China: Amendment 2021 25. February 2021
  • EPO practice of national patent offices – more uniform 18. February 2021
  • BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest 16. February 2021

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:

26. February 2021
Action against a patent already expired

Action against a patent already expired

18. February 2021
EPO practice of national patent offices – more uniform

EPO practice of national patent offices – more uniform

15. February 2021
Employee’s invention in insolvency

Employee’s invention in insolvency

12. February 2021
Equivalence ruling of BGH: ‘Equivalent means’ in case Crane arm

Equivalence ruling of BGH: ‘Equivalent means’ in case Crane arm

5. February 2021
Trade secret: what are ‘appropriate’ secrecy measures?

Trade secret: what are ‘appropriate’ secrecy measures?

29. January 2021
Brexit: Changes for UK patent attorneys in GER

Brexit: Changes for UK patent attorneys in GER

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

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
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Kontaktformular

 

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

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

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

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

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

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form