Trade Secrets: Navigating geopolitical risks and IP theft in the semiconductor industry

No items found.
​
November 4, 2025

Cases of IP theft in the semiconductor industry are on the rise. IP theft is often driven by a desire to accelerate technological development and gain a competitive edge without incurring the high costs of R&D. In August 2025, Taiwanese authorities arrested three current and former employees of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) for allegedly stealing technology trade secrets about the company's manufacturing processes to share with a rival company in Japan. Such cases highlight the threats to organisations' IP, highlighting the importance of identifying what IP you own and how best to protect it.

Semiconductor IP: Intellectual Property Rights

Semiconductors and the products which utilise them may be protected by a range of registered and unregistered IP rights, including:

  • copyright (written designs, instructions, layouts, software and applications, copyright in data etc);
  • patents (the high-level functional designs as well as innovation in the structure or operation of devices);
  • designs (chip layouts and circuit design);
  • database rights (the collection of data associated with chip design and manufacturing);
  • topography rights (the layout designs of integrated circuits).

IP rights, such as patents, generally require that the right holder discloses their ideas to the public. The right holder is awarded limited legal protection in return for putting their innovation into the public domain. This might not always be desired. Sometimes, keeping information confidential can offer a better form of protection. For example, the secrets of manufacturing processes may not be discoverable from the finished product. Keeping such know-how behind closed doors may offer the owner better protection than disclosing it in return for a patent.

This is where trade secrets come in.

What is a trade secret?

A trade secret is a special category of confidential information. They are statutorily defined to mean information that:

(i) is secret, meaning it is not generally known among, or readily accessible to, persons within the circles that normally deal with the kind of information in question;

(ii) has commercial value to the business; and

(iii) has been subject to reasonable steps taken by the person lawfully in control of the information to keep it secret.

In the UK, trade secrets are primarily protected under common law through the doctrine of breach of confidence (protecting against the unauthorised use of information which is confidential in nature and disclosed in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence). This is supplemented by the Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2018, which implemented the EU Directive 2016/943 (Trade Secrets Directive). 

Under the Trade Secrets Directive and Regulations, trade secrets are infringed through unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure.

In the context of semiconductors, trade secrets may be used to protect material compositions, proprietary manufacturing processes and testing methodologies.

The loss of a trade secret can have one of the most significant impacts on a company's competitive edge. Therefore, ensuring that a company has a well-organised trade secret framework and governance which is fit for all key territories, is essential in today's geopolitical landscape.

Protecting trade secrets

What qualifies as a trade secret can be wide ranging. As such, protecting them requires a holistic approach, including strong legal safeguards like contracts (e.g., non-disclosure agreements, restrictions on use and employee and trade restrictive covenants). This should be coupled with robust internal policies, such as employee training, physical and electronic access controls and security measures. Steps should be taken to safeguard proprietary information like manufacturing processes, source code, chip designs, and chemical formulations from both internal and external threats.

In the event of misappropriation of a trade secret, the owner would need to demonstrate to what the trade secret relates. This is in part because a court needs to be able to define the secret in order to make orders relating to it (which is often harder than it sounds) and the steps taken to protect it. This involves:

  • Step 1: Identify – Businesses must carefully assess their important know-how to determine exactly whether it constitutes economic value to the business. This may require a dedicated team of people with knowledge of the information and strategic understanding of the company's objectives.
  • Step 2: Internal Measures – Consider what measures would be appropriate to protect such information. For example:
  • Limiting access to certain employees;
  • Controlling physical access e.g. housing R&D in a different building to other operations;
  • Classifying documents to demonstrate that the organisation clearly distinguishes between different categories of information;
  • HR policies and procedures around the protection and use of such information and how to report a disclosure/breach;
  • Training around the protection of information; and
  • Upgrading and/or adoption of systems and processes to ensure protection of the information.
  • Step 3: Legal Documentation – Robust contractual provisions can protect trade secrets. For example, an NDA could in certain circumstances prohibit reverse engineering of shared samples. Furthermore, such provisions can make it easier to pursue remedies for breach, including injunctions to prevent further use or disclosure, and compensation for loss suffered as a result.
  • Step 4: Monitoring and enforcement – Despite available legal protections, semiconductor companies face significant challenges in protecting trade secrets both from internal and external threats. Therefore, it is important that companies carry out ongoing monitoring of the information and take necessary action as soon as reasonably practicable in the event of misappropriation or compromise to the security of its information.

Trade Secrets v Patents

Deciding whether to keep inventions secret or to patent them, largely depends on the ability to detect the invention in a finished product. If an idea is patentable, and it is possible to detect it in the product, getting a patent might be commercially sensible. This might apply to features relating to the structure of a semiconductor device. A patent would allow the patent holder to exclude others from exploiting the technology, giving them a competitive advantage. Such an advantage might increase revenue, or for early-stage companies, it may help entice investors. However, in doing so the idea will be made public, as most patents are published during the application process. Conversely, it may make better commercial sense to keep an idea secret. For example, inventions relating to semiconductor manufacturing processes are not typically detectable in the end product. By filing a patent, you are telling the world about your important processes, but any resulting patent may not be enforceable, given the difficulty in detecting the use of the process.

In addition, patenting can be expensive, especially if you seek protection in a large number of jurisdictions. You may also need to police and enforce any granted patents, which can prove more difficult in ‘hidden' technologies (e.g. in chips and behind APIs). Also, unlike patents, which publish after 18 months and only usually last up to 20 years, trade secrets can remain ‘secret' indefinitely (assuming no leaks or independent third-party development). Above all else, commercial considerations are key, and early legal advice is essential to ensure appropriate and proper protection.

Key takeaways for businesses

Trade secrets provide essential protection for proprietary confidential information. The complex designs and innovations that power semiconductor manufacturing are invaluable. However, as geopolitical competition heats up for economic and technological dominance, semiconductor companies increasingly become targets of IP theft. Board members need to be alert to this risk and be putting in place robust measures to protect their intellectual assets. By having a well-organised trade secret framework and robust internal governance, semiconductor companies will be better prepared to handle and respond to challenges posed by the geopolitical landscape.

The Latest Thought Leadership pieces in the Content Hub

INTA 2026 Essentials: Where to stay, what to see and what to do
June 3, 2025
Discover the INTA 2026 Essentials! This comprehensive guide will help you navigate your stay, showcasing the best accommodations, must-see attractions, and exciting activities to enjoy during your visit.
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
UPC Agreement Is Not EU Law, No Referrals to CJEU
01 September 2025
expert v. Seoul Viosys, UPC_CoA_380/2025 Order of 20 August 2025 (ORD_22147/2025)[1] This order from the UPC Court of Appeal clearly states that the Court of Justice of the EU cannot be asked to...
#
Litigation
​
Unconventional Service: igus v. Whale Technology
29 August 2025
UPC_CFI_318/2025, decision of 5 August 2025 (ORD_34299/2025)[1] In a default judgment issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
#
Litigation
​
A Cloud of Uncertainty: Implications of G 1/23 for Software Companies
29 July 2025
On 2 July 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its landmark decision in case G 1/23 (Solar Cell Sealing Materials and Solar Cell Module), a ruling that has...
#
Consulting
​
Flawed consultation on Standard Essential Patents launched by UK Government
29 July 2025
Earlier this month, the UK Government unveiled its latest consultation on Standard Essential Patents, proposing some "practical steps" which they are considering to "create a more balanced system"...
#
Litigation
​
UPC refuses extension of deadline for review of seizure order after refusal of service
22 July 2025
Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automotive Sub Council Order of 14 July 2025 (ORD_26742/2025 [1]) This article follows up on the UPC...
#
Litigation
​
UPC grants ‘in absentia’ permanent injunction on agricultural tool
21 July 2025
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v Spiridonakis Bros GP (UPC_CFI_513/2024 relating to EP1998604) Order of 25 June 2025 (ORD_17812/2025 [1]) This Decision from the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court...
#
Litigation
​
Applying Ocado, the UPC grants a R262 request to access CFI documents
09 July 2025
NJOY Netherlands B.V v Juul Labs International, Inc (UPC_CFI_309/2023) Order issued 9 June 2025 (ORD_27305/2025) [1] The Paris Central Division revoked Juul Lab's patent EP 3 498 115 B1 by decision...
#
Litigation
​
Unified Patent Court: The Impact of Brexit
26 June 2025
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) now has jurisdiction over 18 of the 27 EU states and advertises itself as an EU court but is there any prospect of the UK getting involved in the Unified Patent Court...
#
Consulting
​
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
25 June 2025
UPC_CFI_58/2024 Following a decision, a successful party has one month to apply for a costs decision (Rule 151). In the relevant case, the main decision (dated 19 February 2025) stated that the...
#
Litigation
​
Provisional Injunction Denied for Small Molecule Kinase Inhibitor
19 June 2025
Zentiva Portugal, LDA v. Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH (UPC_CFI_41/2025 relating to EP1830843) Court of First Instance Order dated 8 May 2025 ORD_18599/2025 [1] Summary The Application for...
#
Litigation
​
Avoiding Added Matter Pitfalls: Mastering Amendments Before the EPO
17 June 2025
"Added matter" objections are a common and often frustrating hurdle in European patent prosecution. The European Patent Office (EPO) takes a particularly strict stance on claim amendments, especially...
#
Patenting
​
The UPC two years on: Withdrawals of actions becoming prominent
09 June 2025
The Unified Patent Court has now been running for two years. To mark the occasion, we have looked at the cases and the decisions over the past two years, and share our thoughts on the current state...
#
Litigation
​
INTA 2026 Essentials: Where to stay, what to see and what to do
03 June 2025
Discover the INTA 2026 Essentials! This comprehensive guide will help you navigate your stay, showcasing the best accommodations, must-see attractions, and exciting activities to enjoy during your visit.
#
Patenting
​
Building a Resilient Quantum Patent Portfolio: Winning the Race to File First
29 May 2025
A key question for those working in a fast-paced and complex industry such as quantum technology is when to patent any technological developments.
#
Consulting
​
AI and Bitstreams at the Core of China’s Patent Update
28 May 2025
On April 30, 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released a draft amendment of the Patent Examination Guidelines (for public comment), proposing further revisions to...
#
Patenting
​