Risks and pitfalls
However, trade secrets are not protected by a specific legislation in many jurisdictions. Hence, compared with other IP assets, trade secrets have less protection.
“India does not have sui generis law to protect trade secrets. Thus, they are protected by way of contractual agreement between the parties and common law of torts,” shared Narula.
Likewise in Hong Kong, there is no specific legislation regarding trade secrets.
“The limited number of reported cases involving trade secrets may well be an indicator of the difficulty in seeking protection in this area,” said Fong.
Meanwhile, Singapore law contains no express definition of trade secrets. Under common law, trade secrets are protected by the doctrine of breach of confidence and related legislation such as the Penal Code and Computer Misuse Act.
In contrast, the United Kingdom protects trade secrets under both common law and the Trade Secrets Regulations 2018.
Meanwhile, nearly every state in the United States has put in place variations of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act for the protection of trade secrets.
“The typical drawback of trade secret licensing will be the risk of losing the trade secret which is not otherwise protected when compared with other forms of registrable IP,” said Fong, citing patents as an example.
“Patents offer protection even if it is publicly disclosed but trade secrets provide protection by secrecy. Hence, once the know-how ceases to be a secret, be it as a result of technical leaks or reverse engineering, it will become part of the public domain and loses its protection immediately,” she explained.
“Even subject to confidentiality obligations in a licensing agreement, disclosing trade secrets can increase the risk of misappropriation by a licensee or third parties. When trade secrets are disclosed or introduced to the public domain without the licensor's consent, a licensor may nonetheless lose its competitive advantage and ability to commercialize its confidential information,” Khatri added.
Not only that, when a trade secret is disclosed by the licensee to another party, which is a common risk, the licensor will have a difficult time tracking the trail of such disclosure and thus have a difficult time proving the misuse of the IP.
The very confidential nature of trade secrets, in itself, already signals a pitfall to licensors. This can make it difficult to define the precise scope of the trade secret in a licensing agreement. Consequently, this may adversely affect the level of protection provided to the trade secret.
“If the information is defined too narrowly, protection may not adequately cover the full breadth of the trade secret. If it is defined too broadly,” said Khatri, “the information may not be protected as a trade secret at all.”
Of course, there is always the risk of the licensee not complying with the contractual relationship and terms of agreement while the licensor may have already shared the trade secret. It may be outright non-compliance with the agreement such as using IP outside the territory when the agreement contains territorial restrictions. Or, it could be due to multi-interpretation of one or more clauses according to each party’s interest or extreme limitations from the licensor to the licensee.
As such, the license may be terminated. Despite the termination however, the licensee may continue using the trade secret for its own interests. The licensor will then find himself spending resources to protect and enforce his rights.
In such breaches of agreement, enforcement of trade secrets and obtaining commercially useful remedies may prove difficult.
“An injunction may not be effective where disclosure of the trade secret has already occurred. In such circumstances, damages for breach would be more appropriate, but it would be difficult to determine since the calculation of loss would be speculative and the owner's valuable trade secret would have been compromised. The licensing agreement may fix liquidated damages, but any such clause would be subject to the court's determination of whether it is a penalty clause, which would not be enforceable under Singapore law,” Khatri said.
“Due to the nature of the trade secret license agreement which is strictly confidential, the alternative solution of the dispute is usually done out of court in order to keep the discretion of the case. Such dispute resolution is sometimes considered as a soft legal action with lack of deterrent effect. We also know that the light effect or sanction may lead to negligence,” added Alvariza.
Another potential risk involves a licensee engaged in the production of competing goods. He may be utilizing the trade secret by making small tweaks and then argue that the information is available publicly anyway. In the long run, this can lead to the competitor-licensee gaining more public recognition than the licensor.