9 Amendments of Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN related to 2013/0402(COD)
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Open innovation is an important lever for the creation of new knowledge and underpins the emergence of new and innovative business models based on the use of co-created knowledge. Trade secrets have an important role in protecting the exchange of knowledge between businesses and/or research institutions within and across the borders of the internal market in the context of research and development and innovation. Collaborative research, including cross- border cooperation, is particularly important to increase the levels of business research and development within the internal market. Open innovation is a catalyst for new ideas to find their way to the market meeting the needs of consumers and tackling societal challenges. In an internal market where barriers to such cross-border collaboration are minimised and where cooperation is not distorted, intellectual creation and innovation should encourage investment in innovative processes, services and products. Such an environment conducive to intellectual creation and innovation is also important for employment growth and improving competitiveness of the Union economy. Trade secrets are amongst the most used form of protection of intellectual creation and innovative know-how by businesses, yet they are at the same time the least protected by the existing Union legal framework against their unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure by third parties.
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) It is appropriate to provide for rules at Union level to approximate the national legislative systems so as to ensure a sufficient and consistent level of redress across the internal market in case of unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of a trade secret. For this purpose, it is important to establish a homogenous definition of a trade secret without restricting the subject matter to be protected against misappropriation. Such definition should therefore be constructed as to cover business information, technological information and know-how where there is both a legitimate interest in keeping confidential and a legitimate expectation in the preservation of such confidentiality. Such confidential know- how should furthermore have commercial value, whether actual or potential, insofar as its unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure undermines the scientific and technical potential, business or financial interests, strategic positions or ability to compete of the trade secret holder. By nature, such definition should exclude trivial information and should not extend to the knowledge and skills gained by employees in the normal course of their employment and which are known among or accessible to persons within the circles that normally deal with the kind of information in question.
Amendment 121 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) ’infringing goods’ means goods whose designproducts or services whose characteristics, quality, manufacturing process or marketing significantly benefits from trade secrets unlawfully acquired, used or disclosed.
Amendment 159 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 5
Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. The conscious and deliberate production, offering or placing on the market of infringing goods, or import, export or storage of infringing goods for those purposes, shall be considered an unlawful use of a trade secret, when the person carrying out such activities knew, or should, under the circumstances, have known that the trade secret was used unlawfully.
Amendment 164 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) observation, study, disassembly or test of a product or object that has been made available to the public or that it is lawfully in the possession of the acquirer of the information; and is not under any legal obligation to limit the acquisition of the trade secret.
Amendment 196 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that actions for the application of the measures, procedures and remedies provided for in this Directive may be brought within at least one year but not more than twofour years after the date on which the applicant became aware, or had reason to become aware, of the last fact giving rise to the action.
Amendment 203 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – introductory part
The obligation referred to in the first subparagraph shall cease to exisontinue to apply until after the end of the legal proceedings, except in any of the following circumstances:
Amendment 228 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that in deciding on the granting or rejecting of the application and assessing its proportionality, the competent judicial authorities shall be required to take into account all relevant aspects of the case, such as the value of the trade secret, the measures taken to protect the trade secret, the intentional or unintentional conduct of the respondent in acquiring, disclosing or using of the trade secret, the impact of the unlawful disclosure or use of the trade secret, the legitimate interests of the parties and the impact which the granting or rejection of the measures could have on the parties, the legitimate interests of third parties, the public interest and the safeguard of fundamental rights, including freedom of expression and information.
Amendment 262 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) the person concerned originally acquired knowledge of the trade secret in good faith and fulfils the conditions of Article 3(4)at the moment of use or disclosure neither knew nor had reason, under the circumstances, to know that the trade secret was obtained from another person who was using or disclosing the trade secret unlawfully;