<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Case law &#8211; Geheimnisblog</title>
	<atom:link href="https://geheimnisblog.de/en/themen/case-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://geheimnisblog.de</link>
	<description>GeschGehG and Know-How Protection</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 17:02:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-GB</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>The &#8220;Leaked&#8221; or &#8220;Found&#8221; Trade Secret</title>
		<link>https://geheimnisblog.de/en/the-disclosed-or-found-trade-secret/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Verwaltung]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:16:30 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procedural law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://geheimnisblog.de/?p=1125</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[A real-life case that raises unexpected questions: Does the passive acquisition of a USB flash drive containing trade secrets infringe the German Act on the Protection of Trade Secrets (GeschGehG)? (&#8230;) <a href="https://geheimnisblog.de/en/the-disclosed-or-found-trade-secret/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>NDAs and contractual penalties: Mandatory consideration of Section 5 of the German Act on the Protection of Trade Secrets (GeschGehG) (?)</title>
		<link>https://geheimnisblog.de/en/ndas-and-contractual-penalties-mandatory-consideration-of-section-5-of-the-german-act-on-the-protection-of-trade-secrets-geschgehg/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Verwaltung]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2026 13:16:30 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Confidentiality order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contractual penalty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://geheimnisblog.de/?p=1127</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) typically contain liquidated damages clauses to ensure compliance with confidentiality obligations. A recent decision by the Cologne Regional Labor Court (LAG) dated January 29, 2026 (Case No.: (&#8230;) <a href="https://geheimnisblog.de/en/ndas-and-contractual-penalties-mandatory-consideration-of-section-5-of-the-german-act-on-the-protection-of-trade-secrets-geschgehg/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Berlin Regional Court II: No injunctive relief against public statements despite a confidentiality agreement</title>
		<link>https://geheimnisblog.de/en/berlin-regional-court-ii-no-prohibition-on-making-statements-despite-a-confidentiality-agreement/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Verwaltung]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2026 11:46:50 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Confidentiality order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protective measures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Clause]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://geheimnisblog.de/?p=1149</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Whether a company can base claims for injunctive relief against public statements on a contractual confidentiality agreement was the subject of proceedings before the Berlin Regional Court II. In this (&#8230;) <a href="https://geheimnisblog.de/en/berlin-regional-court-ii-no-prohibition-on-making-statements-despite-a-confidentiality-agreement/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Baden-Württemberg Regional Labor Court: Protection of Trade Secrets Despite an Invalid Clause in the Employment Contract</title>
		<link>https://geheimnisblog.de/en/baden-wuerttemberg-regional-labor-court-protection-of-trade-secrets-despite-an-invalid-clause-in-the-employment-contract/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marie-Sarah Boudon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 11:01:43 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protective measures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Confidentiality measures]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://geheimnisblog.de/?p=1155</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Claims arising from the breach of trade secrets may only be asserted by a party that protects its secrets from access by third parties through appropriate measures. These measures also (&#8230;) <a href="https://geheimnisblog.de/en/baden-wuerttemberg-regional-labor-court-protection-of-trade-secrets-despite-an-invalid-clause-in-the-employment-contract/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Austrian Supreme Court (öOGH): Loss of rights due to inadequate protective measures</title>
		<link>https://geheimnisblog.de/en/austrian-supreme-court-oeogh-loss-of-rights-due-to-inadequate-protective-measures/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dr. Stefan Maaßen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2024 15:07:09 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protective measures]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://geheimnisblog.de/?p=1161</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The requirement to protect a trade secret through appropriate confidentiality measures continues to pose challenges for clients and advisors. A recent decision by the Austrian Supreme Court (öOGH) now illustrates (&#8230;) <a href="https://geheimnisblog.de/en/austrian-supreme-court-oeogh-loss-of-rights-due-to-inadequate-protective-measures/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Court of Justice (BGH): Memory performance in Trade Secrets Litigation – The limits of memory</title>
		<link>https://geheimnisblog.de/en/federal-court-of-justice-bgh-memory-performance-in-trade-secrets-litigation-the-limits-of-memory/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dr. Stefan Maaßen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:46:10 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Burden of proof]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General civil law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[German Federal Court of Justice (BGH)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memory-based performance]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://geheimnisblog.de/?p=1207</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[A common defense argument in trade secrets litigation is the claim that the defendant did not copy or take any documents but rather retained certain information in their memory. Given (&#8230;) <a href="https://geheimnisblog.de/en/federal-court-of-justice-bgh-memory-performance-in-trade-secrets-litigation-the-limits-of-memory/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nuremberg Higher Regional Court: Urgency is inherent in the trade secret matters</title>
		<link>https://geheimnisblog.de/en/nuremberg-higher-regional-court-urgency-is-inherent-in-the-trade-secret-matters/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dr. Stefan Maaßen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2023 09:27:19 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General civil law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procedural law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Urgency]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://geheimnisblog.de/?p=1211</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[According to the Nuremberg Higher Regional Court, the presumption of urgency under Section 12 (1) of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) is not applicable by analogy under the German Act (&#8230;) <a href="https://geheimnisblog.de/en/nuremberg-higher-regional-court-urgency-is-inherent-in-the-trade-secret-matters/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court: An NDA does not replace a confidentiality order</title>
		<link>https://geheimnisblog.de/en/karlsruhe-higher-regional-court-an-nda-does-not-replace-a-confidentiality-order/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dr. Stefan Maaßen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2023 11:43:38 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Confidentiality order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Procedural law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NDA]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://geheimnisblog.de/?p=1180</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[According to the Mannheim Regional Court &#8211; a view also held, albeit in a slightly less stringent form, by the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court &#8211; the need for legal protection (&#8230;) <a href="https://geheimnisblog.de/en/karlsruhe-higher-regional-court-an-nda-does-not-replace-a-confidentiality-order/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Looking back: GeschGehG 2022</title>
		<link>https://geheimnisblog.de/en/looking-back-geschgehg-2022/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dr. Stefan Maaßen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2022 16:47:47 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Confidentiality measures]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://geheimnisblog.de/?p=1186</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[To wrap things up, let’s take another look at the activities of the Geheimnisblog over the past year: We published no fewer than 13 posts related to the German Act (&#8230;) <a href="https://geheimnisblog.de/en/looking-back-geschgehg-2022/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Saxony Regional Labor Court: Enforcement of a Clean Desk Policy</title>
		<link>https://geheimnisblog.de/en/saxony-regional-labor-court-enforcement-of-a-clean-desk-policy/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marie-Sarah Boudon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2022 08:36:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protective measures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clean Desk Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Data protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Work organization]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://geheimnisblog.de/?p=1216</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[To protect trade secrets, the holder must take appropriate protective measures, including in the area of work organization. In a recently issued decision, the Saxony Regional Labor Court clarified that (&#8230;) <a href="https://geheimnisblog.de/en/saxony-regional-labor-court-enforcement-of-a-clean-desk-policy/">Read more</a>]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
