In this article, I discuss the case between EWAC and Curium c.s. because it highlights how essential clear agreements on confidentiality and choice of forum are, especially in multiple agreements.
EWAC sued Curium et al for wrongful use of trade secrets and breach of confidentiality agreement. The Amsterdam court ruled not only on jurisdiction but also on the validity of several agreements, with major implications for the main case.
Good Law regularly discusses cases that further sharpen the interpretation of contracts and legal agreements. In this case, it revolves around the question of which agreement is leading in disputes over trade secrets and confidentiality.
The Amsterdam court ruling shows how important it is to have clear agreements on jurisdiction and confidentiality clauses, especially when multiple agreements are involved.
Jurisdiction of the court
Based on Section 108 Rv, the Amsterdam District Court held that it had jurisdiction under both the MCA and the MNDCA to hear the dispute between EWAC, Curium and ECN. Although this could lead to a division of the claim, the court considered itself competent to hear the entire case for reasons of efficiency and consistency between the claims.
Why this judgment is relevant
The ruling was special because of the three successive agreements on which the dispute was based. Each agreement concerned different information and designated a different competent court.
The question in the jurisdiction case implicitly already dealt with the main issue: did the latest agreement set aside the older agreements, including the jurisdiction and confidentiality clauses contained therein? The court ruled that all the agreements, including the forum selection clause and confidentiality obligation, were valid and continued to coexist.
Impact of the ruling
The decision on the jurisdiction and validity of the forum selection clause had major implications for the outcome of the main case. If the older agreements had been declared invalid, the confidentiality obligation under those agreements would also have lapsed. By ruling that all the agreements remained valid side by side, the confidentiality obligation was strengthened.
Read more about the ruling here.
