Skip Navigation


Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice Advance Access originally published online on September 1, 2006
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2006 1(11):714-718; doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpl136
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1/11/714    most recent
jpl136v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Batteson, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Practice Point

Gaining confidence in the law of confidence

Alex Batteson *

Legal context. The recent case of EPI v Symphony has left the UK law of confidentiality in an uncertain state: the extent to which recipients of confidential information may be permitted to ‘use’ mixtures of such information with publicly available material remains unclear. The Court of Appeal in EPI felt that it was hard to reconcile the principle that any claim in confidence must fail if the material in question is in the public domain with the ‘springboard’ doctrine; but is the distinction illusory?

Key points. Issues raised in this case include consideration of what precisely is ‘use’ of confidential information, when mixed with public information, and whether a confider should do more than rely on confidentiality obligations to protect the fruits of his/her disclosures. This article asks how confidentiality obligations may be aligned with the control of statutory intellectual property rights. It considers whether the Court of Appeal in Markem v Zipher has confused the issue and speculates as to how far the general law of contract can assist the confider.

Practical significance. Finally, this article discusses which legal tools will best assist the confider seeking to protect its intellectual property.

*Professional Support Lawyer, Intellectual Property Technology, Media & Communications Group DLA Piper UK LLP.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.