Breach of confidence Flashcards
Valeo Vision SA v. Flexible Lamps
- info obtained in breach of confidence won’t destroy novelty for patent application made in the next six months.
Seager v. Copydex
- Two ways of assessing damages:
(1) If information could have been obtained by employing a competent consultant = the amount of damages equals the fee that consultant would charge;
(2) If the information is something special involving an inventive step = amount of damages is the price a willing buyer would pay for it.
CMI Centers v. Phytopharm
- Information must have been derived from the confider’s information, not independently
Mont v. Mills
-defender left claimant’s company to become MD of competitor- severance agreement said he couldn’t join technical company for 1 year, court held that no appropriate limitation to geographical area/ nature of activities and therefore struck down this clause of the severance agreement
Mars v. Teknowledge
-coin received in mechanism for vending machine- discriminator machine tells which coin is which, the programme for discriminator was encrypted. Defendants broke encryption and reverse-engineered the discriminator machine.
- Held that encrypting information doesn’t impart confidentiality as it can be dismantled and that a patent would have been more appropriate
- Avoids exploitation of breach of confidence (which has no time-limit
-
Carflow Products (UK) Ltd. v. Linwood Securities (Birmingham) Ltd
The test, whether confidential treatment of the information has been accepted, is objective. 424 (Not only important that info is given in confidence, it must be accepted in confidence- other party must have agreed to info being kept confidential or have an implied duty)
Terrapin Ltd. v. Builders Supply Co. (Hayes) Ltd
Springboard Doctrine- if you obtain info. from a private source, and disclose it in breach of confidence, you shouldn’t be in a better information than someone who got the information lawfully from a public source-claimant sued for breach of confidence, defenders argued info on pre-fab houses was in public domain, court held that information was publicly available but not easy to get it, and would entail dismantling house- you can’t use info obtained in confidence to get a springboard, or head-start, on your competitors
Franchi v Franchi
- Patentable information not confidential as it was published in an earlier patent specification in Belgium so in the public domain.
- Contrast with PJS v News Group which deals with private information!
Fraser v. Thames TV
-(Idea of t.v series relating to female rock groups, court said in order to get protection idea must be attractive enough for a t.v programme and capable of being realised- court held this idea was specific enough to be protected.
Secton v Delawood
- Method of separating oil and water- purpose was too vague since no method)
To protect a concept or an idea, it must be sufficiently developed to be capable of being realised:
De Maudsley v Palumbo
-Dance club, Ministry of Sound, the defendants were accused having appropriated idea of new type of dance club as five elemnts (1) legally open all night (2) large fitted areas in indutrial warehouse style (3) club would have areas for drinking, eating, dancing and socialising (4) enclosed dance area with higher sound quality (5) top quality djs- court said individually too vague to be protected.
Coco v A.N Clark
Claimant must establish:
- The information in question is capable of being protected,
- The defendant owes the claimant an obligation to keep the information confidential,
- The defendant used the information in a way that breached that duty.
also -The law of confidence does not protect trivial information
Dalrymple (JR)’s Application
Info must be objectively confidential. Saying info is confidential won’t suffice.
Manufacturer delivered 1000 technical bulletins and claimed they were confidential- court held passing to 1000 people means it’s no longer objectively confidential- this also destroyed novelty for a patent application
Info must be objectively confidential. Saying info is confidential won’t suffice.
Dalrymple (JR)’s Application
Saying info is confidential won’t suffice.
Manufacturer delivered 1000 technical bulletins and claimed they were confidential- court held passing to 1000 people means it’s no longer objectively confidential- this also destroyed novelty for a patent application
Test for breach of confidence
Coco v AN Clark.
Claimant must establish:
1. The information in question is capable of being protected,
2. The defendant owes the claimant an obligation to keep the information confidential,
3. The defendant used the information in a way that breached that duty.
