Proceedings should determine an alleged violation without unnecessarily disclosing the information at issue. Sections 26h and 26j UWG provide a narrow procedural framework.
A business alleging a trade secret in court faces a tension. It must present a coherent factual case, yet the presentation itself should not result in wider disclosure. Section 26h UWG therefore limits the information initially disclosed and requires the court to provide appropriate procedural safeguards.
For an application under the specific interim regime, section 26j UWG requires orderly substantiation of three factual blocks. This page addresses only that procedural structure. The substantive foundations remain on the firm website, operational preparation in the checklist and general UWG injunction guidance on the existing topic page.
Section 26h UWG
The provision combines initially limited disclosure with measures taken by the court. The objective is not maximum disclosure, but enough detail for the alleged secret and asserted claim to be derived coherently.
01
The information alleged to be secret is initially disclosed only to the extent indispensable for plausibly presenting the protected subject matter and the alleged violation. The first written submission must contain enough detail for the alleged secret and the asserted claim to be derived coherently.
02
On application or of its own motion, the court must prevent the opposing party and third parties from learning more than they already know. Measures may include disclosure only to a court appointed expert, a non-confidential summary and a separate part of the file excluded from inspection.
03
On a reasoned application, the court may order further disclosure where it is necessary for pursuing or defending rights or for a fair trial. Legitimate interests and the possible consequences of granting or refusing disclosure must be balanced.
04
A person who learns of the alleged trade secret solely through participation in the proceedings or access to documents must generally keep it confidential. The duty continues after the proceedings. A non-confidential version of a decision must omit passages containing the secret.
Section 26j UWG
Section 26j(1) UWG identifies what an applicant under section 26i(1) UWG must substantiate. The following blocks are neither a definition nor a prediction of success. They show only which factual issues must be presented separately.
The exact information must be identified with enough precision for the court to understand the alleged protected subject matter. The presentation remains limited to what is required for substantiation.
The applicant must separately explain why it is the holder of the alleged trade secret. That connection should not be assumed merely from the description of the information.
The presentation must identify the allegedly unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure that has occurred or is specifically threatened. Alleged facts should be distinguished in language from the legal conclusions drawn from them.
The court decides whether substantiation is sufficient and which measure would be proportionate in light of the particular circumstances. This structure replaces neither a specific application nor review of the available evidence.
Burden of allegation and proof
Austrian Supreme Court decision 4 Ob 188/20f states that the claimant must allege and prove the cumulative statutory elements under section 26b UWG. Only that narrow evidential point is relevant to this procedural page. The substantive elements are deliberately not repeated here.
Procedural confidentiality therefore does not remove the burden of presentation. It provides a framework in which sufficient detail and protection of the alleged secret can be combined. The decision does not predict the outcome of another individual case.
Section 26i UWG
Section 26i UWG provides specific interim measures for trade secret disputes and also permits measures to preserve evidence. Section 26h UWG applies accordingly. Which measure may be appropriate in a particular proceeding is outside the scope of this page.
The existing topic page explains general UWG injunctions, preservation of evidence and the protective purpose. Injunctions and interim relief under Austrian competition law .
Clear boundary
This page remains confined to confidentiality in court and orderly substantiation. Three other questions are directed only to the content intended for them.
This page does not explain whether information qualifies legally as a trade secret or which substantive statutory rules apply.
How a business handles confidential information in its operations belongs in the dedicated checklist, not in a procedural page.
General injunction issues and economic consequences are separate topics. This page provides neither a general guide nor a calculation.
The substantive foundations are explained in the article Trade secrets under the Austrian UWG.
Organisational and contractual preparation is covered by the trade secret checklist.
General guidance on injunctions, preservation of evidence and the protective purpose appears under injunctions and interim relief.
This page provides general information on Austrian competition law. It does not replace legal advice in an individual case. The required detail, procedural confidentiality and sufficient substantiation depend on the particular proceedings and available facts.
Begin with the procedural situation only. We will clarify which facts are required for legal review and how confidential information should be handled in the next steps.