Skip to main content

“KCM v. Viel”

Decision of the Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) 25 February 2016 – Case No. 189/16

There is no legal basis for a judicial order allowing only the representing attorney, but not his client, to inspect documents obtained in the course of a seizure and possibly containing trade secrets of the party subject to such seizure.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Author information

Consortia

Additional information

Translation by Leo Lahme.

For a case note on this decision together with the Japanese IP High Court decision “In Camera Proceedings/FOMA” by Christopher Heath, see this issue of IIC at doi:10.1007/s40319-017-0649-z.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 145. “KCM v. Viel”. IIC 48, 977–979 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0650-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Search order
  • Protection of secrecy
  • Exclusion of party to inspect documents
  • Procedural law
  • Trade secrets