England and Wales Case Law

Trayport Limited v E-Star Trading GmbH & Ors

Permission to serve out is set aside for most claims due to failure to meet the merits test, inadequate pleading, lack of evidence of acts within the UK, and material non-disclosure. However, permission is re-granted for (1) the NDA claim against Exxeta, (2) breach of equitable duties of confidence by the corporate Defendants, and (3) the Trade Marks Act claim against E-Star, as these claims meet the merits test and England is the appropriate forum for them. The Copying Case, most statutory IP claims, and claims against Mr Schmid fail the merits test. Material non-disclosure occurred but is r…

Source excerpt

• Copyright infringement
• Database rights
• Breach of confidence
• Trade secrets
• Breach of contract
• Jurisdiction and service out

Read case analysis

Merck KGaA v Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC & Ors

Merck KGaA v Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC & Ors [2026] EWHC 1113 (Ch) (15 May 2026)

The court held that MSD remained bound by the confidentiality agreement and could not use the disclosed documents for collateral purposes without a targeted application.

• Confidentiality of disclosed documents
• Collateral use of documents
• Open justice principle
• Contractual confidentiality agreements
• Cpr 31.22
• Trade secrets

Read case analysis

Titan Wealth Services Limited & Anor v Tavistock Investments PLC & Ors

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against permission to amend a defence and counterclaim for breach of confidence, holding the pleading incoherent and insufficiently particularised.

• Breach of confidence
• Copyright infringement
• Pleading particularity
• Amendment of pleadings
• Trade secrets
• Breach-of-confidence

Read case analysis

Trayport Ltd v E-Star Trading GmbH & Ors

Trayport Ltd v E-Star Trading GmbH & Ors [2026] EWHC 164 (Ch) (06 February 2026)

The High Court set aside service out of jurisdiction, finding the claims were insufficiently pleaded or evidenced in several respects, though some claims could proceed.

• Service out of jurisdiction
• Jurisdictional gateways
• Copyright infringement
• Database right
• Trade secrets
• Breach of confidence

Read case analysis

Titan Wealth Services Limited & Anor v Tavistock Investments PLC & Ors

Permission to amend the Defence and Counterclaim is granted as the proposed amendments are coherent, properly particularised given the current stage and knowledge imbalance, and have a real prospect of success; the jurisdiction challenge is dismissed as misconceived and totally without merit; the summary judgment/strike-out application is dismissed as the claims are not bound to fail and factual disputes require trial; the copyright and breach of confidence claims are properly pleaded and should proceed; costs follow the event with indemnity costs on the jurisdiction challenge and standard ba…

Source excerpt

• Amendment of pleadings
• Summary judgment
• Strike-out applications
• Jurisdiction challenge
• Duties of confidence
• Copyright infringement

Read case analysis

Titan Wealth Services Ltd & Anor v Tavistock Investments PLC & Ors

Titan Wealth Services Ltd & Anor v Tavistock Investments PLC & Ors [2025] EWHC 3381 (Comm) (11 December 2025)

The Commercial Court allowed amendments to a defence and counterclaim, joined Titan Wealth Holdings Ltd, and rejected a jurisdiction challenge, summary judgment, and strike-out applications.

• Amendment of pleadings
• Summary judgment
• Strike-out
• Jurisdiction
• Duties of confidence
• Copyright infringement

Read case analysis

Playtech Software Ltd v Realtime SIA & Anor

Playtech Software Ltd v Realtime SIA & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 1472 (21 November 2025)

The Court of Appeal held that a trade secrets claim against Latvian defendants did not satisfy the jurisdiction gateway because direct damage was sustained in Latvia.

• Trade secrets
• Copyright infringement
• Jurisdiction
• Applicable law
• Forum non conveniens
• Trade-secrets

Read case analysis

Playtech Software Limited v Realtime SIA & Anor

The Court of Appeal held that Latvian law applied to Playtech’s trade secrets claim, and that England and Wales was not the proper forum.

• Trade secrets
• Copyright infringement
• Jurisdiction
• Applicable law
• Forum non conveniens
• Trade-secrets

Read case analysis

InterDigital, Inc & Ors v Optis Cellular Technology LLC & Ors

The correct legal approach is the balancing exercise ('old test'), not an automatic redaction under the Trade Secrets Regulations. Both lump sum and per unit financial figures, as well as derived averages and totals, are confidential and their publication would materially harm the competitive position of the relevant parties. Therefore, all such information should be redacted from the published judgment. Factual errors should be corrected under the slip rule.

Source excerpt

• Frand licensing
• Confidentiality
• Trade secrets
• Patent licensing
• Open justice
• Redaction of judgments

Read case analysis

InterDigital Inc & Ors, In the Matter Of (Re Optis Cellular Technology LLC & Ors v Apple Retail UK Ltd & Ors)

InterDigital Inc & Ors, In the Matter Of (Re Optis Cellular Technology LLC & Ors v Apple Retail UK Ltd & Ors) [2025] EWCA Civ 1263 (07 October 2025)

The Court of Appeal held that FRAND judgment redactions should cover confidential lump sums, per-unit rates, and derived averages and totals, and it corrected minor slips in Annex 3.

• Frand licensing
• Confidentiality
• Trade secrets
• Patent licensing
• Open justice
• Redaction of judgments

Read case analysis