Trade Secrets and Know-How

Overview

Trade secrets and know-how are important assets for companies in terms of innovation and competitiveness, and their protection is a key priority for many of our clients. We help our clients to develop the policies and procedures they need to preserve and protect their trade secrets, starting from the initial genesis of an idea, through its development, to commercialization.

When our clients’ trade secrets and know-how are under threat as a result of misappropriation, our Brussels team uses its substantial litigation experience in this area to make sure that our clients retain their competitive advantage.

We handle matters relating to confidential know-how or trade secrets in a pragmatic but creative manner. We use a multi-disciplinary approach, drawing on the broad experience of our IP litigators, combined with the knowledge of our employment, antitrust and white-collar criminal lawyers in Europe and the U.S. This can result in clients avoiding payment of significant damages and/or injunctive relief.

Sound Advice and Litigation Proficiency

Most trade secrets violations are committed by employees or ex-employees, or consultants. As a point of departure, we help our clients avoid litigation by explaining what information can be considered “secret” and of commercial value, and by helping them to take appropriate, reasonable steps to protect this information. We advise our clients on the meanings of these various terms and on the conditions that must be satisfied if they are to obtain redress should the information be used unlawfully.

Trade secrets are not strictly speaking intellectual property rights. Their protection, which is guaranteed in Belgium by the Belgian Trade Secrets Act (implementing the 2016 EU Trade Secrets Directive), was inspired by IP law but there are some major differences between the two regimes.

The fact that we have extensive experience both in trade secrets protection and in all forms of IP law allows us to help our clients choose the most advantageous path for them in the context of their business. For example, proceedings for trade secrets appropriation can be an attractive option in cases where resources are limited, as it is generally a less expensive alternative to other, more costly, forms of IP protection, such as patents. However, evidence gathering possibilities are more limited under trade secrets law than under IP law, as there is no direct equivalent to the IP counterfeit search and seizure procedure.

Trade secret misappropriate proceedings can be brought in both the civil and criminal Belgian courts, and we represent our clients at every level before the Belgian courts and before the Court of Justice of the European Union. We also advise our clients on the sometimes tricky question of how to keep information secret once proceedings have commenced (the “confidentiality club”).

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.11.25

Europe’s Highest Court Compels Disclosure of Automated Decision-Making “Procedures and Principles” In Data Access Request Case

On February 27, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued a ruling about the requirements on data controllers to respond to data access requests regarding an automated decision-making system. In particular, the CJEU interpreted the meaning (under Article 15(1)(h) GDPR) of the phrase “meaningful information about the logic involved” in automated decision-making. Importantly, the ruling also separately addressed how to balance data access rights with the protection of the controller’s trade secrets, when the protection of trade secrets is invoked under Article 15(4) as a reason not to disclose a copy of personal data in an access request....

|

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.11.25

Europe’s Highest Court Compels Disclosure of Automated Decision-Making “Procedures and Principles” In Data Access Request Case

On February 27, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued a ruling about the requirements on data controllers to respond to data access requests regarding an automated decision-making system. In particular, the CJEU interpreted the meaning (under Article 15(1)(h) GDPR) of the phrase “meaningful information about the logic involved” in automated decision-making. Importantly, the ruling also separately addressed how to balance data access rights with the protection of the controller’s trade secrets, when the protection of trade secrets is invoked under Article 15(4) as a reason not to disclose a copy of personal data in an access request....