Case Nos: IP-2023-000039 and IP-2023-000132 - [2024] EWHC 2889 (IPEC)

It seems to me that the meaning and effect of both clauses 2(5) and 3(1) of the NDA will require consideration by reference to the matrix of fact against which the NDA was settled. This includes consideration of the meaning of ‘generally known’ and also what happened by way of disclosure of the designs and when. They raise issues which are sufficiently arguable to support my earlier indication that Currentbody’s counterclaim based on the NDA must go to trial.