«Protected Interest» in relation to confidential information (trade secrets and know-how)

Socio-economic changes caused by digitalization naturally require the adaptation of existing mechanisms for the implementation and protection of civil rights to new digital realities. Current problems in the field of the implementation and protection of civil rights are combined into two large-scale blocks. Firstly, these are modern problems of classical institutions of civil law, and secondly, these are problems related to the formation of fundamentally new institutions of civil law, the digitalization of civil turnover. In this regard, the main conceptual approaches to the development of civil law at the present stage include: the revision of traditional institutions of civil law, the introduction of relations with digital objects and technologies into existing civil law institutions, situational civil law regulation, the formation of independent legal regimes. Modern problems of civil law concern the main legal regimes – property, obligation, inheritance, corporate law, as well as intellectual property rights. The most obvious problems are the definition and correlation of new concepts that are similar in essence: digital property, digital objects, digital property, digital assets, digital financial assets, digital currency, digital law. The identification of the legal essence of these phenomena will allow the formation of new legal regimes and correlate them with the legal regimes of property, liability, corporate law, and intellectual property rights. As a result of digitalization, there is a gradual transformation of traditional institutions of civil law. The so-called machine-readable law is being formed. One of the ways to modernize legislation is the enrichment of new concepts and categories, the lacunary introduction of individual norms or entire regulatory systems that have a different nature of impact on public relations related to digital objects and the digital form of the exercise of rights and duties. The protection of property and non-property rights is becoming one of the few most effective levers of state influence on participants in relations emerging in the innovation sphere. The protection of rights must be made directly dependent on the legitimacy of the actions of the participants in the relations in the information and telecommunications system. It is necessary to legislate a rule according to which any actions circumventing the law, regardless of whether or not the subject's goal was to circumvent the law, should be qualified as an abuse of the right, entailing the loss of the right to protection. To solve problems in the field of the exercise and protection of civil rights, it is necessary to create a multi-system approach to regulating relations: along with the traditional system of law (dividing law into branches, institutions and norms), a special machine-readable law based on digital algorithm technology and program code should be formed.

In this article, a study is conducted on the interaction of intellectual property law with branches of private law. In particular, the interaction of intellectual property law with civil law is substantiated. Intellectual property law acts as a sub-branch of civil law, respectively, the subject of legal regulation also consists of property and personal non-property relations that develop with respect to intellectual property objects. In turn, the exclusive right to intellectual property belongs to the category of property rights, and as a subjective right is one of the objects of civil rights. Some provisions of the article are devoted to the analysis of intellectual property rights with the institute of non-contractual obligations. Often, the creation of intellectual property objects is the subject of competitive obligations, and copyright holders may be harmed as a result of torts. Exclusive rights also act as the subject of inheritance and inheritance law, exclusive rights can be the subject of hereditary legal relations, which is also reflected in the content of the article. The issues of interaction of intellectual property law with private international law are touched upon, since intellectual property law is one of the institutions of private international law, which provides for conflict-of-laws regulation of relations complicated by a foreign element [1]. The uniqueness of intellectual property rights is also manifested in connection with labor law, since the subject of interaction is relations regarding official works and inventions, which, as a rule, are determined by an employment contract, but require compliance with special legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan [1]. The article analyzes the interaction of intellectual property law with family law, since exclusive rights and intellectual property objects, being property, can be the subject of family legal relations.

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) are significant because India is a signatory to TRIPS agreement and member of WTO. Intellectual property rights are the monopoly rights enjoyed by the original creator. It includes exclusive rights allocated to the creator for reaping the profits of his creation by his intellectual wit and innovation. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) are the rules which are formed to protect the inventions from being copied by others. This is done in order to protect the economic value of the new creation which is done by the innovator. Granting Patents rights, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets are some of the main forms of IPRs. The awareness about IPRs is essential for the youth so as to develop their entrepreneurial skills which will help them to be the leaders in every field. A field survey on awareness about IPR has conducted for a specified purpose with a definite objective with specific community or target group. It uses questionnaires or interviews so as to assess knowledge of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and its types such as patents, copyrights, trademarks. The purpose of this study is to examine the awareness of intellectual property rights (IPR) among youth i.e. college students. The significance of this study can be understood in two ways. - (i) to sensitize the youth regarding IPRs (ii) to make them understand the role of infringements of IPR. Questionnaire containing 20 questions was designed on various aspects of IPR awareness covering definitions of IPR and its different types -patents, copyrights, trademarks, process of registration of IPR like patents, IPR infringement and its consequences, IPR laws, IPR- mechanism, personal experiences on IPR. The survey gave optimist results about the awareness assessment of the youth about Intellectual Property Rights awareness. Although many of the respondents did not have 100% clarity a bout IPR yet they tried to respond well. However, more conceptual clarity and practical guidance is required to sensitize them about IPR and provide them actual knowledge ab out IPR.

The Colour of Copyright

In the broadest sense of civil law, trade secret is the object of its separate branches. The legal institution of trade secret occupies a special place in the system of civil and commercial law and includes a set of general and special civil law rules governing the civil circulation of commercially important information. The Civil Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan does not define a trade secret and does not specify its individual elements. However, we have a special act of legislation in our legislation that regulates trade secrets. Its main element is "information". In order to determine the commercial significance of information under the legislation of Azerbaijan, it is important to clearly define these criteria in the legislation, as well as to cause certain problems in a dynamic environment. According to the legislation of Azerbaijan, there are criteria set out in the legislation to determine the commercial significance of the information. The precise definition of these criteria in the legislation is important, but can also lead to certain problems in a dynamic environment. Key words: commercial secrets, intellectual property law, civil law, Azerbaijani legislation, commercially important information, nou-hau

This article is devoted to the definition of state authorities which establish the legal regime in the field of protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights to plant varieties. The author defines the powers of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine as the highest body in the system of executive authorities, the State Service of Ukraine on Food Safety and Consumer Protection as the controlling body and the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine as the competent authority which is the main body in the field of protection of intellectual property rights to plant varieties, since it is entrusted with a list of tasks in the field related to protection of rights to plant varieties. The Ukrainian Institute of Plant Variety Expertise is an authorized institution to conduct scientific and technical examination of plant varieties. It is established that the State Service of Ukraine for Food Safety and Consumer Protection is the controlling body in the field of plant variety rights protection and the types of control it exercises are defined. The state body responsible for conducting scientific and technical expertise of plant varieties is the Ukrainian Institute of Plant Variety Expertise, which operates on the basis of the Charter. The issue of problems arising in the course of concluding license agreements for the use of plant varieties is raised. The author analyzes the case law and provides an example of a court decision that addresses infringement of intellectual property rights to plant varieties. The reasons for infringement are often preceded by low awareness of the owners of property rights and rights to distribute plant varieties, since the issue of effective commercialization depends on the stage of granting licenses for the use of the said intellectual property. The article illustrates the example of the Network of Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC), which operates within the structure of the national patent office – UKRNOVI, conducting educational activities and providing information and advisory support and services on intellectual property protection, commercialization and promotion of innovations in Ukraine and abroad. The list of foreign countries with special patent courts, where cases related to infringement of intellectual property rights are considered, is provided. The issue of launching the High Court of Intellectual Property is considered, since the creation of such a court is aimed at resolving numerous issues in the field of intellectual property rights protection. The article concludes with a general conclusion about the state authorities whose activities are related to the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights to plant varieties and the problems that exist today.

This article is dedicated to the study of legal regulation of the mediation procedure in the field of intellectual property. Due to the rapid development of intellectual property and the proliferation of its objects, there is a need to create effective mechanisms for the protection of rights. Traditional court proceedings are lengthy and costly, complicating the timely protection of these rights. Mediation, as an alternative dispute resolution method, offers a quick, less formal, and economically advantageous way to reach an agreement between parties. Analysis of foreign experience shows that mediation is an effective tool that helps to reduce the burden on the judicial system and increase the satisfaction of the participants in the process. In Ukraine, mediation is at an early stage of development, but its implementation is promising. To successfully apply mediation in the field of intellectual property, it is necessary to create a clear legal framework that includes defining the legal status of mediators, establishing procedural norms, and ensuring the voluntary participation of the parties. It is important to consider international experience and adapt it to national peculiarities. This will ensure effective protection of intellectual property rights, reduce the number of court disputes, and improve the investment climate in Ukraine. Based on the results of the study, the author concludes that mediation in the field of intellectual property can be applied in the following cases: 1. For the resolution of disputes arising from the use of intellectual property objects without the consent of the rights holder (author, creator, inventor, or the person to whom the intellectual property rights belong according to a contract or law); 2. In resolving disputes related to intellectual property rights infringements; 3. In cases of disputes arising during the licensing and transfer of intellectual property rights; 4. For the resolution of disputes that arise when concluding and fulfilling contracts in the field of intellectual property, particularly contracts regarding the disposition of intellectual property rights; 5. In resolving disputes that arise from the use of intellectual property objects that have been transferred to third parties.

Intellectual property rights-–copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and related rights-–have become increasingly important with the advent of increased international trade, global and knowledge-based economy and fast developing technology. A strong intellectual property rights regime is necessary in order to attract foreign trade and direct investments. For this reason, the protection of intellectual property rights has become an_x000D_ important negotiating item in all FTAs which the United States has entered into. In view of the proposed RP-US FTA negotiations, this paper seeks to determine whether the_x000D_ existing intellectual property regime in the Philippines provides adequate and sufficient legal protection of intellectual property rights. It also seeks to determine whether the administrative and judicial processes are adequate and speedy and acceptable in the enforcement and protection of said rights in the light of FTAs already entered into by the United States with other countries, in general, and with Singapore, in particular, which will be the benchmark for the RP-US FTA. Other relevant issues in the protection of intellectual property rights such as the annual review of ountries by the United States Trade Representative in relation to Special 301 of the U.S. Trade Law; piracy of optical media, including books and pharmaceuticals; and the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) are also discussed. The author proposes certain provisions to be added to the Intellectual Property Code; sustained, consistent and stricter implementation of intellectual property laws including more efforts at curbing piracy; and more importantly, a strong political will and a strong determination to strengthen intellectual property rights, as necessary to make the IPR regime up to par with U.S. and international.

Victoria Cundiff litigates trade secrets disputes in state and Federal courts nationally, coordinates international trade secrets litigation, and helps clients develop alternatives to litigating trade secrets disputes. She is the Chair of AlPLA's Trade Secrets Litigation Subcommittee and is Co-Chair of the New York State Bar Association's Committee on Trade Secrets. Bradford Newman founded and leads Paul Hastings' International Employee Mobility and Trade Secret practice. He is the author of Protecting Intellectual Property in the Age of Employee Mobility: Forms and Analysis, a comprehensive treatise published by ALM that offers authoritative guidance on legal risks and practical steps companies can take to protect their IP and remedy IP theft. In connection with his national practice spanning many industries, Mr. Newman routinely serves as lead trial counsel in cases with potential eight and nine-figure liability, and has successfully litigated a broad spectrum of trade secret and employee mobility cases in state and federal courts throughout the country. Jeffrey A. Pade is an intellectual property litigator with over 20 years of experience in all phases of patent trade secrets, and other intellectual property laws. He has directed complex and international patent and trade secrets litigation strategies concerning mechanical, semiconductor, and many other technologies for clients around the globe, and actively represents international clients in intellectual property audits, investigations, and strategic initiatives. Anand B. Patel provides strategic business counseling on intellectual property disputes, investigations, and transactions, and has extensive trial and appellate experience in patent and trade secret matters. A former Federal Circuit clerk, he represents a diverse group of clients on technologies ranging from microprocessor fabrication to pharmaceuticals. ********** AS major regions across the world seek to harmonize trade secret law within and across jurisdictions, international companies now should focus on building their own uniform policies and procedures for protecting their intellectual property and defending against claims of misappropriation. Given the recent passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the EU Trade Secrets Directive (the Directive), it is clear that both regions have recognized the substantial value of trade secrets to the global economy and have decided to take analogous stances on the basics of trade secret law, including what constitutes a trade secret and how a violation occurs. Although the similarities are not unexpected the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) (1) provides many foundational provisions there are important nuances in each locale's rules that affect how companies should consider enforcing trade secret rights and defending against misappropriation claims across those major international jurisdictions. I. Overview of the DTSA After several unsuccessful attempts over more than five years, (2) Congress in April overwhelmingly approved (3) and President Obama in May signed (4) the DTSA, which provides a Federal private right of action for trade secret misappropriation. The DTSA is incorporated into the previously-enacted Economic Espionage Act (EEA), (5) which provides criminal penalties for misappropriation. (6) The DTSA pulls heavily from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), (7) already in force in some form in 48 states, (8) by providing similar definitions of key terms and remedies for misappropriation. (9) In addition to providing the right to sue in Federal court (importantly, without preempting parallel state law claims (10)), the DTSA provides an ex parte seizure mechanism and whistleblower immunity. II. Overview of the EU Directive In 2013, after studies (11) showed the importance of trade secrets to the economy, particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises, and the fears of many organizations that asserting claims for misappropriation would result in inadequate remedies and potentially place their trade secrets at risk of public disclosure, the European Commission proposed a Directive to address differences in the trade secret laws of the EU Member States. …

The article is devoted to the research of the intellectual property rights system in Ukraine. Intellectual property is the result of the creative activity of any person or group of people. The author studied the categories «intellectual property» and «intellectual property right», investigated the principles of intellectual property and the system of intellectual property rights of Ukraine. In Roman law, there was the term «property», because the «property right» in its classical meaning was formed in Rome, and related to private relationships. Intellectual property is the property of a person that arose as a result of her creativity. However, for our Ukrainian legislation, the expression «intellectual property» is «terra incognita». Yes, intellectual property is studied by such branch legal sciences as: civil law, administrative law, international law, and others. Formed the State Service of Intellectual Property, but the organization of the state system of legal protection of intellectual property, in our difficult times, wants a better one. In the legal literature on intellectual property issues various definitions of «intellectual property right» are given. From a subjective point of view – this is a subjective right, and from an objective point of view – a civil law institute, a set of legal norms that regulate relations in the system of creation and protection of intellectual property. Man, his freedom and rights are the most important value of evolutionary development of society, which manifests itself in the growth of the intellectual potential of the population of each country. Only man possesses intelligence, creative potential and creative abilities. In addition to it, on earth, no living creature can create. Creative activity is the most important aspect of human life, which allows you to convey your talent to society. The consequence of this activity is something new, unique, unique and original. The accumulated products of the human mind are the heritage of the nation, which determine its further development.The Constitution of Ukraine guarantees to the citizens of the state freedom of scientific, artistic, literary and technical creativity, protection of intellectual property rights, moral and material interests arising in connection with various types of intellectual activity. Every citizen has the right to the results of his intellectual, creative activity; no one can use or distribute them without his consent, with the exception of the statutory provisions. The intellectual potential of the nation, in the form of improving education, production, culture, science and technology, needs constant support from our state. The Civil Code of Ukraine for the first time in our national legislation was given a formal definition of the right of intellectual property, as the rights of the individual to the result of intellectual, creative activity or other object of intellectual property rights.

Straipsnis parengtas Mykolo Romerio teisės mokyklos Baudžiamosios teisės ir proceso instituto mokslinėje-praktinėje konferencijoje „Besikeiciancios visuomenės issūkiai baudžiamajai justicijai“ skaityto pranesimo pagrindu. Komercinės paslaptys yra vienas labiausiai paplitusių komercine verte turincios inter alia intelektinės nuosavybės objektų teisinės apsaugos būdų. Komercinių paslapcių apsaugos pradžios momentas nėra susijes su valstybės institucijų įsikisimu. Priesingai nei patentų, komercinių paslapcių teisinis režimas yra labiau suvokiamas verslui – siekiant apsaugoti komercines paslaptis de facto joms nekeliami jokie didesni reikalavimai nei tokios informacijos vertė.1 Sios aplinkybės ir lėmė komercinių paslapcių didelį paplitimą. Komercinės paslaptys yra reguliuojamos skirtingų teisės sakų normų: civilinės (inter alia darbo), administracinės ir baudžiamosios teisės normomis. Toks platus reguliavimas gali būti tinkamai taikomas tik aiskiai atribojant skirtingų atsakomybės rūsių taikymo atvejus. Deja, Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso 210 ir 211 straipsniai yra abstraktūs, kartojantys kituose teisės aktuose vartojamus terminus, nenustacius kokybiskai reiksmingų atribojimo kriterijų. Netinkama juridinė technika komercinių paslapcių apsaugos srityje lėmė situaciją, kad baudžiamosios atsakomybės taikymas labiau priklauso nuo teisės taikytojų norų vienur ar kitur matyti nusikalstamą veiką ar jos nematyti. Taip pat toks reguliavimas tampa verslo subjektų alternatyviu teisinių gincų sprendimo būdu baudžiamosios teisės priemonėmis ir jis yra perteklinis.

The licensing agreement on intellectual property rights raises the exclusive rights in the form of a monopoly on intellectual property rights. The exclusive rights are abused by the holder or owner of the intellectual property rights to determine the license agreement that violates the principles of competition. Setting licensing restrictions in Article 50 letter b of UU No. 5/1999 is appropriate only where the article is just limiting the intellectual property rights that may arise in the future. Setting licensing restrictions should not only be governed by UU No. 5/1999 alone, but also governed by laws and regulations related to intellectual property rights continuously, so that the implementation of the licensing agreement limitation becomes maximal.

The article is devoted to the content of the concepts "intellectual property" and "right of intellectual property", as well as to the possibility to use them as equivalent concepts. The author considers the features of a broad understanding of the intellectual property concept, in which it is revealed as a complex set of social relations arising at all levels of public life. According to this approach intellectual relations are only one type of the varieties of intellectual property relations, the totality of which only occasionally acts as the subject of legal regulation. Taking into account the above facts, the difference between the meaning of the concepts "intellectual property" (in the sense of this concept as a social relation) and "intellectual property right" is reflected in the content of the structural elements of the relations that denote these concepts: 1) Subjects of intellectual property rights are determined on the basis of compliance with certain legal requirements regarding legal personality, as well as the acquisition of subjective legal rights and obligations, which are provided to them by legal norms (by using their legal personality); the subjects of intellectual property become participants of social relations of different levels, including those, which are outside the legal regulation. Such interactions may be related to realization of creative abilities of a person, mental activity, etc.; 2) In the centre of understanding of the concept "object of intellectual property rights" is the content of intellectual property rights as a totality of personal non-property and property rights. The defining aspect of legal protection is the right to the created object of intellectual property rights. At the same time the object of intellectual property is a value in socio-philosophical sense that satisfies the social, economic, cultural, mental and other needs and interests of people. In this sense, an object by its nature is a blessing for a person; 3) Social connections between the subjects of intellectual relations are revealed through corresponding rights and obligations of the participants of these relations; in the relations of intellectual property social relations manifest themselves as interaction between people in different spheres of social life, based on the corresponding social statuses and roles, in which individuals carry out creative activity, realize their mental and cultural needs, etc. Understanding the concept "intellectual property" as identical with the concept “intellectual property right” is based on a normative approach. This approach shows that the concepts of “intellectual property” and “intellectual property right” have the same sense in the legislation and can denote both objects of intellectual property right and rights to such objects.

The article examines the normative content and justification of intellectual property rights (IPR), focusing on the question of whether the incentive theory provides a sufficient and appropriate basis for the regulation of intangible goods within the framework of the concept of inherently limited rights. The research method is based on theoretical analysis conducted within the framework of Civil Law Policy. The first part of the article compares two approaches to limiting rights, including exceptions and limitations related to intellectual property. The first approach assumes that rights are restricted only in cases of conflict with other rights. In contrast, the second approach, Marmora's concept of inherently limited rights, posits that rights are subject to both external and internal limitations through prior analysis of costs and benefits (ex ante). Adopting the second approach leads to the conclusion that intellectual property rights should be treated as inherently limited by a system of exceptions and limitations. This perspective supports the principle of the public domain, which holds that exclusive rights are exceptions to the general rule of the widespread availability of intangible goods and must be designed and applied in accordance with the principle of proportionality. The second part of the article critically evaluates the incentive theory as a tool for justification and conducting ex‐ante analysis. This theory is inadequate as a foundation for regulating intangible goods. Firstly, it erroneously assumes that exclusive rights are a causally necessary condition for the creation of works and technological progress. Furthermore, it overlooks the importance of non‐market transactions and the role of the state in the creation of intangible goods, relying instead on the premise that the market is the primary or sole mechanism for social organization. The incentive theory also disregards alternative means of appropriating benefits from intangible goods within market transactions and fails to consider the micro‐ and macroeconomic inefficiencies resulting from granting exclusive rights. From this perspective, the article serves as a critique of the current system of regulating intangible goods through exclusive rights justified by the incentive theory. At the same time, it advocates for the development of a more comprehensive and balanced regulatory model that considers both the interests of creators and societal needs. Particularly promising are regulatory models based on non‐exclusive rights, which, while ensuring remuneration for creators, simultaneously provide broad access to intangible goods for society.

This study aims to analyze and determine the criteria for intellectual property rights (copyright) as objects of inheritance in civil law and to analyze and determine the status of intellectual property rights (copyright) as objects of inheritance in civil law. Intellectual property rights are material rights, rights to objects originating from the work of the brain, the result of the work of the ratio. The result of the work of reasoning human ratios. The result of his work is in the form of immaterial objects, intangible objects, for example, copyrighted songs. Article 16 paragraph (1) Law no. 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright stipulates that by its nature copyright is an intangible movable object. Immaterial property rights are property rights whose objects are intangible objects (intangible objects). In this case many things can be used as objects of property rights which are included in the scope of incorporeal objects. For example, billing rights, rights arising from the issuance of securities, rental rights and so on. The results of the study concluded that copyright (copy rights) which is part of Intellectual Property Rights has criteria as an object of inheritance, because copyright law determines copyright as an intangible movable object that gives moral rights and economic rights to its creators which are exclusive which can be transferred to his heirs. Copyright (copy rights) which is part of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) according to civil law has the position of an object of inheritance, because the law of inheritance is regulated in book II of the Civil Code which regulates objects. Inheritance object according to civil law is an object that is the property of someone who died.