Businesses in Asia reveal trade secrets struggles

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Businesses in Asia reveal trade secrets struggles

tradesecret

In-house counsel face challenges in deciding between protecting inventions with patents or keeping them secret as regulations are still developing

tradesecret

In-house counsel in China say that patent protection is preferred because of the lack of comprehensive trade secret regulation in China and a high burden of proof for plaintiffs. Elsewhere in Asia, such as in Singapore and Japan, businesses have difficulty bringing trade secret cases to court due to challenges in getting evidence.

However, trade secret protection is preferred for some inventions due to lower costs.

Every invention is secret when it is first created; some go on to become patents while others are kept as trade secrets. How do companies decide between the two forms of protection?

The main advantages of protecting an invention as a trade secret are that it can last indefinitely and there are no filing or maintenance fees that need to be paid to IP offices. As a trade secret is protectable once it is created, there is no need to go through an application process.

On the other hand, protecting an invention as a trade secret cannot exclude another party from developing, having or using the same secret independently, while patent protection can exclude any third parties from using the invention. The owner needs to take reasonable measures to safeguard a trade secret, and if it is leaked, disclosed or published, its value is diminished. Plus, it is harder to prove trade secret misappropriation than patent infringement.

In trade secrets infringement cases in China, “most businesses fail in preserving evidence of access and have no paper trail of what someone has accessed and the evidence of what data was taken,” says an IP counsel at a Chinese fintech company.

“The burden of proof is high; there should be a shift in the burden to the defendant, but that goes against the general civil law principle of ‘he who asserts must prove,’” they add.

An in-house counsel at a China-based technology company observes that Chinese businesses are even going to US courts to litigate against Chinese rivals due to the lack of discovery system in their home country.

In-house counsel in Singapore and Japan echo concerns about the difficulty in bringing trade secret cases to court. However, they would still protect inventions as trade secrets if there is good reason to.

Trade secrets are good for a nascent technological field because the costs of protection can be reduced.

“You may easily adopt or discard any of your trade secrets as corresponding markets shift,” says a senior IP manager at a plant biotech research institute in Singapore.

Patent strategy

The senior IP manager says that drafting and filing patent applications will negatively affect resources if the filings are to be abandoned in the near or even distant future. Additionally, if companies are uncertain whether certain technologies will be adopted, they are better protected by trade secrets because these can be modified or enriched later down the road.

An in-house counsel at a Japanese agricultural technology company says that he looks at how easily a product could be infringed, when assessing patent strategy.

“For mechanical patents, these can be quite easily infringed upon and copied by others so we would prioritise filing these patents. On the other hand, inventions relating to communication technology between different equipment isn’t as easily copied,” says the in-house counsel.

The senior IP manager says that acquiring patents for self-defence makes more sense since it is only necessary to respond through an opposition or revocation if someone attacks your patents.

“While acquiring patents does equip you with a tool to eliminate competition within the area of your interest, you still have to actively enforce it against infringers and monitor infringement in the area of your interest,” says the senior IP manager. “The two can drain down all your good resources.”

“This strategy can open up engaging partnerships because if you are known to patent for self-defence, people will come looking for you for that reputation of yours,” says the senior IP manager.

While patents still provide the most exclusive protection for inventions, especially ones that cannot be properly kept secret, they are more costly for businesses – and more companies are considering how best to protect inventions as trade secrets


more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Charles Harding plans to build a new team around life sciences oppositions and contentious work, drawing on his three decades developing a practice from scratch at D Young & Co
The firm reveals how its litigation strategies informed the arguments that took Masimo’s judgment past $818 million
The firm was rebuilding its IP practice through a string of patent hires and a Texas expansion, but its dissolution has put the newly built talent back into the market
AI can exploit longstanding gaps in copyright protection at remarkable speed, but EU law still provides tools to fight back, says Simon Hembt at Bird & Bird
The firm has tapped a local patent trio to establish a foothold in the market and broaden its national presence
New Asia-Pacific IP head Jonathan Chu is eyeing opportunities arising from Chinese technology licensing, overseas enforcement and increasingly IP-heavy cross-border deals
Europe’s largest intellectual property convention and trade fair is back: IP Service World 2026 takes place in Munich from November 23–25 – the 16th edition, with 1,400-plus attendees from 55-plus nations, 100-plus speakers, and 100-plus exhibitors. Three days. Two focused areas. One IP marketplace.
Mehmet Gün and Uğur Aktekin discuss four decades of change in Türkiye’s legal market, the firm’s commitment to independence and the challenge of building an institution that can outlast its founders
Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Gift this article