Law Notes Intellectual Property Law Notes
IP law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB Intellectual Property law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best IP Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highes...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Intellectual Property Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
BREACH OF CONFIDENCE
Involves equitable or contractual duties of confidence owed by D to C, where C has given some information to D.
Is breach of confidence where:
Information divulged has necessary quality of confidence about it
Information was imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence
Was unauthorised use of that information to detriment of party communicating it
Coco v Clark [1969]
INFORMATION
Traditional test applies to commercial or governmental information,
Information which may be protected includes:
Commercial secrets
Coco v Clark [1969]
Governmental secrets
cabinet discussions
Attorney-General v Cape [1976]
Information may be protected regardless of what form it is conveyed to D in
e.g. oral, written
Fraser v Thames TV [1984]
Confidentiality
Information must be confidential
i.e. not already in “realm of public knowledge”
Fraser v Thames TV [1984]
Originality
originality of information may suffice to show secrecy
i.e. where information is “some product of human brain” which confers confidential nature on it
Coco v Clark [1968]
thus if idea lacks novelty, not secret
De Maudsley v Palumbo [1996]
Development of idea
simple ideas are capable of protection
De Maudlsey v Palumbo [1996]
however idea cannot be protected if it is not sufficiently particular and defined
vague idea does not suffice
De Maudsley v Palumbo [1996]
but also no need for idea to be fully developed
Fraser v Thames TV [1984] (idea for TV show)
Precautions
Information will not be confidential if C does not take precautions to keep idea a secret
i.e. where he knows inaction will cause information to fall into hands of third party
Cray Valley [2003]
C’s behaviour treated as evidence that info is not confidential.
Exclusions
Information will not be protected if it is:
Immoral
very high threshold for immorality
Stephens v Avery [1988] (C’s homosexuality not ‘immoral’)
Trivia
where information is useless or trivia
AG v Guardian (No.2) [1990]
seems to be high threshold
e.g. wedding photos do not constitute ‘trivia’
Douglas v Hello [2008]
Losing Secrecy
Secrecy of information may be lost where it has entered the public domain.
AG v Guardian (No.2) [1990]
Publication
secrecy is usually lost via publication
either in UK or abroad
AG v Guardian [1990]
however even if information has been already published abroad, may still be secret if publishing it in UK would bring it to attention of more people in UK
AG v Observer [1990] (Lord Keith)
NB to see whether info has been disclosed, necessary to look at what particular information is protected
Douglas v Hello [2008] (Lord Hoffmann) (spectacle of wedding as a whole protected)
mere speculation in public domain as to nature of information does not suffice
to lose secrecy, public must understand information as a statement of fact
BBC v Harper Collins [2010]
Width of Disclosure
information enters public domain where it is so generally accessible it can no longer be said to be confidential
AG v Observer [1990]
thus mere availability of information to public suffices
Mustad [1928] (patented invention)
where info not generally available, unclear how widely information needs to be disclosed before it enters ‘public domain’
e.g. disclosure to 75 friends is not a loss of secrecy
HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers [2006]
Publication by Whom?
does not matter who publishes info
i.e. even if it was published without consent of person to whom confidential obligation is owed, loses secrecy
AG v Guardian (No.2) [1990]
earlier cases had held that where info published by someone other than person to whom obligation of confidence owed, secrecy was not lost
i.e. obligation of confidence still applied
Cranleigh v Bryant [1966]
Reverse Engineering
‘Reverse engineering’: where business takes product of a competitor to pieces so as to understand it better
Information that can be acquired from reverse engineering is no longer confidential
Mars v Teknowledge [2009]
Mere act of putting product on market means information contained in product loses secrecy
Mars [2009]
Springboard Doctrine
Where D receives confidential information from C, but the information is also available in public domain
Here, D is not allowed to use information as a ‘springboard’ for activities harmful to C
Terrapin v Builder Supply [1967]
This is case even if relevant information is accessible by members of public
Terrapin v Builder Supply [1967]
Duration
Springboard does not last forever
Thus is no breach of confidence once length of time has passed in which member of public could have ascertained info himself
e.g. from reverse engineering or compiling it from public sources
Vestergaard [2009]
Thus any injunction must last no longer than this period
Vestergaard [2009]
Explanation
appears to be an exception to Mustad
thus some judges have had trouble with existence of doctrine
EPI Environmental Technologies [2006]
explanation: doctrine recognises idea of relative confidentiality
i.e. information available to public may be in different form to information in its private capacity between C and D
here, will be much easier for D to use info than a member of public
Vestergaard v Bestnet [2009]
OBLIGATION OF CONFIDENCE
Info must be communicated in circumstances importing quality of confidence.
Examples:
If C and D have particular relationship, will be obligation
husband-wife
Argyll v Argyll [1967]
If info is obviously given in confidence, will be obligation
e.g. C takes D to corner and whispers in his ear
If info given for a limited purpose, likely to be obligation
i.e. where info is given on a business-like basis and with some avowed object in mind
Coco v Clark [1969]
If info given in social setting, will not be obligation
De Maudsley v Palumbo [1996]
Objective v Subjective Test
Objective approach suggested by earlier case
i.e. C bound if reasonable man in D’s shoes would understand information was being given to him in confidence...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Intellectual Property Law Notes.
IP law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB Intellectual Property law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best IP Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highes...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started