Trade Secrets — Osaka High Court, 2023 (Ne) 1657: The Secret Was Not “Disclosed” (Morisaki)
Updated: 3 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Categories: Unfair competition law
Topics: Trade secrets
First published on this website: 2026-10-16
Display and classification checked: 2026-10-17
Case information: 2023 (Ne) 1657
Unfair Competition / Trade Secrets — Osaka High Court, 2023 (Ne) 1657 (Morisaki)
* A trade secret allegedly embodied in experimental equipment cannot be said to have been “disclosed.”
⇒ Claim (appeal) dismissed.
In response to the argument that the trade secret could not be acquired without the appellants’ involvement, the court turned that argument back on them and held that receiving the donation did not constitute having the trade secret “disclosed.”
This can be considered parallel to the patent-law proposition that transfer does not constitute public working where a person skilled in the art cannot readily analyze the invention.
(Excerpt from the decision)
“The appellants argue that the information at issue, which constitutes a trade secret, cannot be analyzed merely by looking at the external appearance of the property at issue and cannot be acquired without the appellants’ involvement, so its non-public nature is maintained. … However, if that is so, even if the appellee received the property as a donation and placed it under its management, that alone would not enable it to learn the information. … There is therefore no room to find the facts alleged by the appellants, namely that, by receiving the property as a donation, the appellee thereby, or on that occasion, had the information constituting the trade secret disclosed to it. The appellants have neither alleged nor proved that, in addition to handing over the property, they disclosed the information to the appellee, and there are no facts suggesting such a disclosure. Moreover, on the appellants’ own arguments, even use of the property for experiments or similar purposes should not enable the appellee thereby to learn the information relating to the structure of the property or other matters. Thus, it cannot be found that the appellee has had the information ‘disclosed’ to it even at the present time.”
Originally published: 2025-03-06
Original Japanese post: https://ameblo.jp/hideki-takaishi/entry-12888875693.html
Related articles
Update history
This history records actual publication, display, and classification changes made on this website.
2026-10-16: The AMEBLO source was first published on this website.
2026-10-17: Added classification, topic tags, article information, translation navigation, related articles, consultation guidance, and SEO. The original article text was not changed.
Comments