Trade Secrets vs. Patents in the UK Space Sector

​
September 11, 2023

In this article we take a look at how trade secrets and patents compare as means of protecting inventions by UK space sector businesses.

Background

Properly protecting intellectual property is a key issue for innovative UK space sector businesses. This can set a business apart from its competitors and is also where a lot of the value can lie. It is therefore highly important for such businesses to have an informed and robust intellectual property (IP) strategy.

A recurring question for many innovative businesses in the UK space sector is whether to protect their inventions through trade secrets or patent protection. These forms of protection are very different and have contrasting advantages and disadvantages, and it is important for businesses to be aware of these when developing their IP strategy.

Below we compare these two forms of protection, with particular emphasis on issues relevant to UK space sector businesses.

Trade Secrets

In the UK, a trade secret is, in essence, secret know-how or other information that is valuable to a business because it is secret [The Trade Secrets Regulations 2018, Regulation 2]. For example, this may be a special way of operating a satellite, or processing earth observation data, that provides a business with a competitive advantage because no one else knows how to do it.

In order to qualify as a trade secret in the UK, reasonable steps must be taken to keep the information secret (i.e., confidential). This may include ensuring all employees understand that the information is confidential and not to be shared, as well as not disclosing the information to third parties (or where this is necessary, doing so in confidence and under an appropriate non-disclosure agreement).

If someone discloses, acquires or uses the trade secret in breach of that confidence, then remedies can be sought from the UK courts. These remedies can include an injunction (i.e., an order not to disclose or use the information) and damages (i.e., an order to compensate the loss suffered).

The main advantages of protecting an invention through a trade secret is that the invention can be kept secret and doesn't need to be published; it is relatively inexpensive; and there is no fixed term to how long the protection lasts: as long as the information remains a secret and of value, the trade secret protection will continue.

However, there are significant risks to protecting inventions through a trade secret. For example:

  • If the information is publicly disclosed (e.g., by an ex-employee, a third party, or by accident), then it is no longer a trade secret, and the protection no longer exists. In such a case there is nothing preventing further use of that information by competitors.
  • If the disclosure occurs by accident with no breach of confidence, then there is no remedy available. Even if the disclosure is by an individual in breach of confidence, the damages recoverable from an individual may not be sufficient to compensate the loss suffered as a result of the disclosure.
  • A trade secret does not provide protection against other people coming up with the same invention independently or by reverse engineering. Further, in such a case, that person could obtain a patent covering the invention, which could give them the right to prevent you using the invention.

Accordingly, while relying on trade secrets is a relatively inexpensive strategy, it is associated with significant risks. Some of these risks can be mitigated by using patent protection instead (discussed below).

Patents

A patent is legal right to prevent others from using the invention covered by the patent in the relevant jurisdiction. A UK patent will provide this right in the UK [The Patents Act 1977, sections 60 and 61], and. corresponding patents can be applied for in other countries.

The United States explicitly provides in its national law that its (terrestrial) patent law also applies in respect of space objects registered to the United States. Germany makes a similar provision in its national law.

As far as we are aware no other state, including the UK, makes a similar provision in its national law. Nevertheless, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the Registration Convention of 1975 potentially provide a legal framework for enforcing patents in respect of patented inventions used on a space object registered to a state. Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 requires that a state that is party to the treaty and on whose registry an object launched into outer space is registered shall retain jurisdiction over the object. The Registration Convention requires that when an object is launched into outer space, a launching State shall register the space object in its registry and defines a launching State as being (i) the State which launches or procures the launching of the object or (ii) the State from whose facility the space object is launched.

It seems reasonable to assume that the jurisdiction provided by the Outer Space Treaty includes the application of a state's patent laws (although we are not aware that this assumption has been tested in a court).

Typically, obtaining a patent involves filing a patent application for the invention at the relevant patent office, and corresponding with an Examiner to establish that the invention meets the relevant requirements of patentability (e.g., it is new, non-obvious, and has an industrial use). As part of this process, the patent application is published. This is the central quid pro quo of the patent – the granting of a monopoly in return for full public disclosure. If the patent is granted, the right can last for 20 years from the filing date, providing the relevant renewal fees are paid.

Patents might be considered to have the following disadvantages over trade secrets: the invention is necessarily publicly disclosed but there is no guarantee that a patent will be granted; it can be relatively expensive to obtain and renew patents; and the patent lasts for a maximum of 20 years.

However, there are significant advantages to protecting inventions through a patent. For example:

  • A patent provides protection even if other people later come up with the same invention independently. Further, the protection provided does not rely on any breach of confidence taking place: The granted patent will give you the right to prevent others from using the invention in the relevant territory (or, for example, allow them to use the invention in return for a licence fee).
  • The protection afforded by a patent is not affected by publicly sharing details of the invention as described by the patent after the patent application is filed. This allows a business to publicize its inventions, which can help attract investment and customers alike. This can also be helpful for collaborative activities such as technology transfer and cross licencing.
  • A patent demonstrates that a business owns the rights to an invention in a jurisdiction (specifically the right to prevent others from using the invention in the relevant jurisdiction). This is often a key factor for investors looking to invest in a business, especially where invention differentiates the business from its competitors.

Accordingly, while typically costing more than trade secrets, a patent can provide a much stronger form of protection. The cost may therefore represent a worthwhile investment for businesses that derive value from their Intellectual Property.

IP strategy

When talking to businesses in the UK space sector, while many have patent protection in place for their key inventions, some have said that they rely solely on trade secrets. However, as discussed above, there are significant risks associated with this, and there are situations were doing so is simply not viable.

For example, for a business that plans on unconditionally selling a product to a customer (e.g., microwave or free-space optics communications systems, or ground equipment), a trade secret may not be viable way of protecting an invention embodied by the product, as it may be lawfully reverse engineered by the customer.

As another example, a business may develop a technology that is used in a module of a satellite deployed in space. The business may plan on keeping the technology as a trade secret. The technology may be unlikely to be reverse engineered from the satellite sitting in space. However, getting the technology into space may involve a chain of non-disclosure agreements (for example involving component manufactures, satellite constructors, and launch operators). The more parties that are involved in keeping the technology confidential, the higher the risk of a breach of confidence (or accidental disclosure). As above, if this occurs, there may be limited remedies available, and the technology may no longer be protected.

Accordingly, businesses developing technology in the space sector should consider filing for patent protection in states in which competitors might manufacture competing technology and/or, in the case of ground-based technology, in states in which competitors might use competing technology. Businesses developing technology that will be embodied in a space object should consider filing for patent protection in states that are likely to be used by competitors as a launching state.

One potential filing strategy is to file for patent protection in states that are major launch states or where major manufacturers or users of space technology are based, e.g, the US, Europe and China. In Europe, advantage can now be taken of the new European patent with unitary effect (the so called unitary patent) that provides uniform patent protection in multiple EU member states (initially 17).

In this way, a relatively small number of patent filings can be used to provide protection in a large part of the overall commercial market.

Of course, if a business can ensure that there will be no breaches of confidence or accidental disclosures, that their invention cannot be reverse engineered, and that the risk of competitors independently creating the invention is low, then keeping the invention as a trade secret may be a viable IP strategy.

On the other hand, patenting allows a business to obtain strong protection for their technological inventions without the risk of the protection being lost by a breach of confidence, accidental disclosure or reverse engineering (after the application is filed). Patenting provides many other benefits too (see above as well as our previous article on the patenting in the space sector). In many cases therefore, patenting plays a key role in providing a robust IP strategy for UK space sector businesses.

In practice, IP strategies for technologically innovative businesses often contain a mix of patents and trade secrets. For example, a popular strategy is to patent the key technological inventions underlying the business (and/or those which can't be kept as a trade secret) and rely on trade secrets for lower-level aspects or aspects which can't be patented.

Conclusion

Relying on trade secrets alone to protect your technological inventions can be risky, and in many cases patenting plays a key role in providing a robust IP strategy for UK space sector businesses. Developing an IP strategy that is right for your business will involve balancing the pros and cons of various forms of protection and can be challenging. If you would like advice on your IP strategy or patenting, please feel free to get in contact.

The Latest Thought Leadership pieces in the Content Hub

No items found.
Stay in the Know

The Patent Strategist

Get expert insights and the top patent stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Heading
This is some text inside of a div block.
This is some text inside of a div block.

Latest Insights

Showing 0 of 100
The contentious role of intellectual property in cryptographic standardisation
12 January 2026
This article explores how intellectual property rights affect the development and adoption of post-quantum cryptography standards. It highlights NIST’s proactive approach to patent licensing for new algorithms, reviews historical cases like RSA and ECC, and discusses the importance of clear IP terms for widespread cryptographic adoption.
#
Patenting
​
System architecture in quantum computing – history repeating itself?
24 December 2025
This article explores the evolution of system architecture in quantum computing, drawing parallels with the early days of classical computing. It discusses the current challenges in quantum hardware, the emergence of quantum instruction set architectures (ISAs), and the potential for a RISC vs. CISC debate similar to that in classical computing. The piece highlights opportunities for innovation and intellectual property, suggesting that the choices made now could shape the future landscape of quantum technologies and licensing.
#
Patenting
​
Strategic licensing: Turning IP into commercial value
09 December 2025
In today’s competitive landscape, effective commercial licensing strategies are essential for unlocking the full value of intellectual property. This article explores four critical pillars: understanding intellectual property as a property right, the fundamentals of licensing intellectual property rights, structuring successful joint ventures and best practices for intellectual property rights management. Whether you’re navigating new markets or scaling established innovations, these tips provide a roadmap for protecting, leveraging and maximizing your IP assets.
#
Consulting
​
The people, physics and patents of the 2025 Nobel prize
09 December 2025
The 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics recognised John Clarke, Michel H. Devoret, and John M. Martinis for proving macroscopic quantum tunnelling in electric circuits, a breakthrough that enabled quantum computing. Their pioneering research led to hundreds of patents, including innovations in MRI and quantum technology, highlighting the real-world impact of their discoveries.
#
Patenting
​
Vision 2035: The need for Innovation to meet ambitious targets set by the UK’s new critical minerals strategy
03 December 2025
The UK’s Critical Minerals Strategy 2025 sets ambitious targets to secure essential minerals for key industries by boosting domestic production, recycling, and innovation. The article highlights the vital role of intellectual property (IP) in supporting technological advances, encouraging collaboration, and strengthening the UK’s supply chains for a sustainable future.
#
Consulting
​
Research underlying Nobel prize in chemistry has sparked innovation and patent filings
02 December 2025
The 2025 Nobel Prize in Chemistry recognised the creators of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), innovative materials with huge potential for water harvesting, clean energy, and environmental solutions. Their work has sparked a surge in global patent activity and new industrial application.
#
Patenting
​
UKIPO fee increases from April 2026: What it means for your IP strategy
25 November 2025
Provisional and interim injunctions both refer to temporary court orders granted before a full trial, aimed at preserving the status quo or preventing harm. In UK law, “interim injunction” is the standard term, while “provisional injunction” is less common and typically used in international contexts. Both serve the same purpose: urgent relief until the case is fully heard.
#
Patenting
​
Sustainable models: content licensing for generative AI training
21 November 2025
It is fair to say that no technology in recent times has created so much excitement and controversy as generative AI, and in particular Large Language Models (LLMs). Generative AI companies and their backers have their sights on generating billions, if not trillions of dollars, directly or indirectly from their models. Models which, in the vast majority of cases, are trained on original works without permission from, or payment to, their authors. The works used for training are primarily obtained by scraping the open web, a uniquely vast repository of publicly accessible knowledge and information, constantly updated to reflect the latest developments in human knowledge and culture.
#
Consulting
​
What should you look to protect in a (bio)pharma IP strategy?
18 November 2025
#
Patenting
​
Trade Secrets: Navigating geopolitical risks and IP theft in the semiconductor industry
04 November 2025
Semiconductors have always been a critical technology but have grown significantly in strategic importance in recent years. They have become the key building block in developing and existing markets, including quantum computing, edge computing, AI, IoT, automotive, cellular data technology, smartphones, robotics, and many more. The complex designs and innovations that power semiconductor manufacturing are invaluable both to the world’s economy and technological advancement. Consequently, the semiconductor industry has found itself at the centre of geopolitical tensions, especially between the United States and China. It has become a prime target for cyberattacks and intellectual-property (IP) theft. As such, companies operating in this area must be more vigilant in protecting their intellectual assets.
#
Consulting
​
UPC takes strict approach on costs reimbursement
30 October 2025
Insulet v. EOFlow UPC_CFI_773/2025 and UPC_CFI 774/2025 (Milan CD), decision of 15 October 2025[1] The dispute began when Insulet sought a provisional injunction against EOFlow to prevent...
#
Litigation
​
UPC Considers but does not decide exhaustion of rights in relation to consumables
30 October 2025
Brita v. Aquashield UPC CFI 248/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 22 August 2025[1] UPC CFI 564/2024 (Munich LD), decision of 16 October 2025[2] Brita sued Aquashield and others for infringement of...
#
Litigation
​
Beyond Borders: A Backpacker’s Take on Why Your Patent Strategy Needs a Global Mindset
29 September 2025
In today’s interconnected world, innovation rarely stops at borders. Whether you’re a multinational corporation or a UK-based business with global ambitions, your patent strategy should reflect the reality that your products, services, and competitors operate internationally. Much like a well-travelled backpacker planning a round-the-world adventure, businesses must prepare carefully—mapping out routes, anticipating local rules, and packing what’s essential—to ensure a smooth journey.
#
Patenting
​
UPC Infringement Actions: Is Speed Meeting Expectations?
23 September 2025
The Unified Patent Court promised simplified and faster patent litigation across Europe. Two years in, we look at whether it’s delivering on that promise. For patent holders and defendants alike, the duration of infringement actions can significantly impact market strategies, investment decisions, and competitive positioning. In this article, we set out an in-depth analysis of how the court’s procedural rules are shaping the pace of litigation. By examining key milestones—from the filing of an infringement action to the issuance of a final judgment—we assess whether the UPC is delivering on its promise of efficiency.
#
Litigation
​
Emerging Practice Points from the UPC
02 September 2025
We have been keeping a close eye on the decisions coming out of the UPC and as the court starts to establish itself a number of practice points are starting to emerge.
#
Litigation
​