RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/Q3/SWE/1
18 February 1998
(98-0581)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property RightsOriginal:  English
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION IN THE FIELDS OF PATENTS, LAYOUT-DESIGNS
(TOPOGRAPHIES) OF INTEGRATED CIRCUITS, PROTECTION OF
UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION AND CONTROL OF
ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES IN
CONTRACTUAL LICENCES
Sweden1
The present document reproduces the questions put to the delegation of Sweden and the
responses given in the review of legislation on patents, layout-designs (topographies) of integrated
circuits, protection of undisclosed information and control of anti-competitive practices in contractual
licences at the Council's meeting of 26-30 May 1997.2
_______________
I. REPLY TO THE GENERAL QUESTION ON PRIORITY RIGHTS3
Does your country recognize a right of priority on the basis of an earlier patent
application filed in any other WTO Member by a national of a WTO Member?
The Swedish Patents Act (Article 6) provides for priority from applications filed in a foreign
country party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and also from
applications for protection which do not relate to a country party to that Convention, if corresponding
priority, in that country, would be granted from Swedish applications and if the legislation in force in
that country essentially corresponds to the requirements under the Convention.
II. REPLIES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY JAPAN
1. In your country, are the following subject matters protectable by patent:  (1) plants and
animals, and (2) plant and animal varieties?
According to Article 1, last paragraph, of the Patents Act, plant and animal varieties or
essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals may not be the subject matter
                                                     
1As regards laws and regulations relevant to the areas under review and notified by Sweden under
Article 63.2 of the Agreement, reference is made to documents IP/N/1/SWE/1, IP/N/1/SWE/P/1-2,IP/N/1/SWE/L/1-2, IP/N/1/SWE/O/2-3, IP/N/1/SWE/U/1.
2The minutes of the meeting have been circulated in document IP/C/M/13.
3At the meeting of the TRIPS Council of 27 February 1997, Members agreed to respond to this
question in the context of the present review (document IP/C/M/12, paragraph 18).IP/Q3/SWE/1
Page 2
of a patent;  patents may, however, be granted for microbiological processes and products resulting
from such processes.  This provision is harmoni zed with the European Patent Convention and the
interpretation is also harmonized with that of the Eu ropean Patent Office.  The only patents for plants
that have been granted in Sweden are for potatoes in general, containing a DNA sequence resulting in
potatoes containing only one type of starch (one type for each patent).
2. In your country, is the act of offering for sale included in the exclusive rights of patent?
According to Article 3 of the Patents Act, the rights conferred by a patent include the offering
for sale of a product protected by a patent.
3. In your country, what kinds of acts are rec ognized as exceptions to the exclusive rights
conferred by a patent right?
According to Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Patents Act, the following acts are recognized as
exceptions to the exclusive right conferred by a patent right, namely:
(a) uses which are not commercial (cf. the reply to question No. 4);(b) uses of patented inventions which have been brought on the market within the
European Economic Area (comprising the European Community Member states and
Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) by the patentee or with his consent;
(c) uses of the invention for experiments concerning the invention as such;  and
(d) the preparation of a patented drug in a drugstore according to a doctor's prescription
or any measures taken with a patented drug thus prepared.
4. In your country, in which case is use wi thout the authorization of the right holder
permitted, including use by the government or by third parties authorized by the government?
There are three types of limitations on, or exceptions from, the exclusive right resulting from
a patent, namely:
(a) the right under Article 4 for those who were, at the time when the patent application
was filed (prior use), commercially using the invention which is the subject matter ofthe patent application, to continue such use;
(b) the right under Article 5 to use a patent-protected invention for repair, etc. of foreign
vessels;
(c) the right under Articles 45 to 48 to use the invention on the basis of a compulsory
licence.
In addition, expropriation of a patent may, against compensation, take place under Article 78
of the Patents Act when the country is at war or in other exceptional circumstances.
The details of the limitations/exceptions, etc. are contained in the respective articles.
As regards more specifically compulsory licences, such licences may, under Articles 45 to 48,
be granted (a) in the case of non-working of an invention, (b) in the case of a dependent patent, (c)IP/Q3/SWE/1
Page 3
when required by public interest of extreme importance, and (d) in the case of prior use of the
patented invention.
It is only in the case of expropriation under Article 78 (when the country is at war or in other
exceptional circumstances) that the right in specific inventions may, against compensation, besurrendered to the Government or to a party as designated by the Government.
To the knowledge of the Swedish authorities,  no compulsory licences have been granted in
Sweden under the provisions in the Patents Act.
5. In your country, how is the obligation under Articles 34.1 and 34.2 of the TRIPS
Agreement regarding the shift of the burden of proof in civil proceedings for patent
infringement related to a process patent implemented?
The provision of Article 34 of the TRIPS Agreement on the shift of the burden of proof in
civil proceedings relating to process patents is implemented through generally applied provisions on
the burden of proof in such proceedings.  This is stated in, for instance, a Bill of 1985
(Bill 1985/86:86) where certain changes were proposed in the provisions on the proceedings in patentcases.  (Earlier an explicit presumption to this effect was included in the Patents Act but had been
abolished in the 1960s).  In the Bill the question of a re-introduction of such an explicit rule of
presumption was discussed extensively but was considered unnecessary because (page 26) it was felt
that the provisions on evaluation of evidentiary circumstances in such cases would take care of the
conflicting interest in this context in the same way as a presumption rule would have done.  It isconsidered that compliance with the provisions of Article 34 of the TRIPS Agreement in this respect
can be ensured without an explicit legal provision, provided that the result would be the same, which
is the case in this situation.
III. REPLIES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE UNITED STATES
1. Article 1(3) of the Swedish Patents Act specifies that "a program for computers" shall
never be regarded as an invention. Please explain whether, under this provision, inventions
within the categories specified below are not eligible to be patented under Swedish law,
notwithstanding the fact that the invention is novel, involves an inventive step, and is useful:
(a) process inventions which, in whole or in part, consist of steps that are performed
by a computer and are directed by a computer program;
(b) product inventions consisting of elements of a computer-implemented invention,
including in particular:
(i) machine-readable computer program code stored on a tangible medium
such as a floppy disk, computer ha rd drive or computer memory; and
(ii) a general purpose computer whose novelty over the prior art arises
primarily due to its combination with a specific computer program.
If any of these types of inventions are excluded from eligibility to be patented, please
explain how the Swedish patent law complies with the obligations of Article 27 of the TRIPSAgreement, which mandates patent eligibility for all categories of invention without
discrimination.
Neither process inventions of category (a) mentioned in the question nor product inventions
of category (b) are excluded from patent protection in Sweden.  The computer program as such is not
seen as an invention; the invention is the execut ion of the described method for solving a technicalIP/Q3/SWE/1
Page 4
problem.  Swedish practice in relation to computer-related inventions is in accordance with that of the
European Patent Office and follows the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case
Diamond vs. Diehr .
The application of the Swedish Patents Act is in this respect in fu ll compliance with the
obligations under Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement.  The common European notion that a computer
program per se  is not an invention does not exclude from patent eligibility any invention where it
consists of a computer program that provides a solution to a specific technical problem.
In any event, computer programs which meet the usual criterion of originality are protected
without formalities under copyright law.
2. Section 3 of the Swedish Patents Act excludes from the definition of the exclusive rights
of a patent uses which are "not commercial".  Some non-commercial exploitation of a patented
invention could "unreasonably prejudice the legitimate rights of patent owners" by having the
effect of causing economic harm to the patent owner’s interests. Please explain how thisprovision has been interpreted by Swedish courts  by giving examples, if any, of the types of
activities that have been found to be "non-commercial" and permissible without the consent of
the patent owner.  Please also explain wheth er Swedish courts consider the economic effect of
the non-commercial activities being conducted by a party other than the patent owner.  If the
courts do not consider this variable, please explain how this provision of Swedish law complieswith Articles 28 and 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, which collectively require that the economic
effect of the activities on the patent owner be considered.
The term used in the original Swedish version is "yrkesmässig" which would mean "in the
course of a professional activity" rather than "commercial".  In doctrinal comments to the Article it is
stated, for instance, that the activity in the course of which the invention is exploited does notnecessarily need to be of an economic character in or der for it to be considered as taking place "in the
course of a professional activity".  This implies not only that the use of an invention in governmental
or municipal contexts is covered by the patent protection but also that use of the invention for charital
or similar purposes is covered by the protection.  Furthermore, where, for instance someone has for
personal purposes manufactured a copy of a patented invention and then sells the copy, that sale is notto be considered as having been carried out in the course of a professional activity;  the sale has,
however, to be a purely incidental one in order to be outside the scope of the patent protection.  Where
the sale is repeated in such a way that it would be considered to be a continuing activity for
manufacturing and sale, even on a small scale, the sale will be considered as carried out in the course
of a professional activity in the meaning of the Patents Act.
3. Section 5 of the Swedish Patents Act provides that temporary presence of foreign vessels
does not constitute patent infringement.  It, however, further provides that the importation of
parts for such vessels do not infringe a patent if reciprocal exemptions from liability are
available in the country of origin.  Please explain how this Article complies with Article 4 of the
TRIPS Agreement, which requires most-favoured treatment for all WTO Members.
The provisions in Article 5 of the Patents Act on importation of spare parts for foreign vessels
correspond to similar provision in, for instance, the Designs Act.  The provision in the Patents Actapplies only to foreign vessels which are not domiciled in Sweden and relate only to use of parts, etc.
for the purposes of repairing the vessel (and not for sale or other disposal of the parts).  The rationale
for the provision is that it must be considered as a legitimate interest for a third party to be able to
repair a vessel in a foreign country.  The provision thus has a narrow scope of application, is aimed at
satisfying fundamental traffic security interests and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimateinterests of the patent holder.IP/Q3/SWE/1
Page 5
The authority given to the Government to issue regulations in this respect has been used only
in one particular case, namely as regards aircraft, through a Regulation (1967:845) on Importation and
Use of Spare Parts and Accessories Intended for Aircraft Regardless of Patent Protection.  That
Regulation prescribes that the provision in the Patents Act may be used for the benefit of aircraft from
a foreign State party to the Chicago Convention of 7 December 1944, on International Civil Aviation
and which is furthermore party to the Paris Convention or has a patent legislation which recognizesinventions made by nationals of other States party to the Chicago Convention and grants a satisfactory
protection to such inventions.
4. Section 6 of the Swedish Patents Act provides the right of priority to Member States of
the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and to entities that provide
reciprocity.  Please explain how this provision complies with Articles 3 and 4 of the TRIPS
Agreement concerning national treatment and most-favoured nation treatment for all WTO
Members.
As stated in the question, Article 6 of the Patents Act sets out the conditions for priority,
namely that such priority may be enjoyed from patent applications filed in a Paris Convention
member country or on the basis of reciprocity.  As this provision does not imply any discrimination
between Swedish applicants and foreign applicants, it is considered not to violate the national
treatment and most-favoured nation principles in Articles 3 and 4 of the TRIPS Agreement.
However, in view of the fact that several other countries grant priority also from applications
made in such WTO countries which are not also party to the Paris Convention, the Swedish
authorities will now consider such an extension of th e right of priority, in the context of a review of a
number of other provisions of the Patents Act.
5. Sections 45 to 48 of the Swedish Patents Act provide for the possibility of issuing
compulsory licences on four distinct grounds.  Sections 49 and 50 of the Act enumerate specific
principles governing the grant of compulsory licences.  Please answer the following questions
regarding the compulsory licensing system established by these provisions:
(a) Article 50 specifies that compulsory lice nces shall be granted by the court, and
that the court shall decide the conditio ns and terms of the licence.  No other
provision of the Swedish law appears to address the question of specific terms or
conditions that must be associated with the grant of any compulsory licence.
Please explain whether Swedish courts impose conditions consistent with those
specified in Article 31(a) to (k) of the TRIPS Agreement, and if not, how Swedish
law complies with each of these specif ically enumerated requirements of the
TRIPS Agreement.
(b) Article 45 permits the issuance of a co mpulsory licence on the grounds that the
patented invention was not worked to a reasonable extent in Sweden.  This
provision also provides that the Swedis h Government may consider working in a
foreign country if there is reciprocal treatment extended by that country.  Please
indicate whether the Swedish Government has decreed that working of an
invention in any WTO Member shall be considered to be equivalent to workingof the invention within Sweden.  Also, please explain how Swedish law complies
with Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, which prohibits discrimination in the
enjoyment of patent rights based on wh ether products are produced locally or
imported.
(c) Section 46 of the Patents Acts regulates the grant of compulsory licences to
dependent patent owners by permitting  a compulsory licence if the dependentIP/Q3/SWE/1
Page 6
invention is important or for other special reasons.  Article 31(l) of the TRIPS
Agreement permits the grant of a compulsory licence only if the dependent
invention involves an important techni cal advance of considerable economic
significance in relation to the dominant patented invention.  Article 31(l) also
requires in every instance of issuance of such compulsory licence that the owner
of the dominant patent receive a cross-licence under the dependent patent.Please explain whether Section 46 is interpreted so as to impose these
requirements in all instances of dependent patent compulsory licences, and if
not, how Swedish law complies with Article 31(l) of the TRIPS Agreement.
(a) Articles 49 and 50 of the Patents Act contain provisions on the terms and conditions
for compulsory licences.  Some of those provisions, such as those concerning the
non-exclusivity, the non-assignability, the determination of the remuneration and the
revocation of the licence in the case of substantially changed circumstances
correspond directly to the provisions in Article 31 in the TRIPS Agreement, whileother provisions in that Agreement, such as the consideration of each case on its
individual merits and the availability of appeals procedures, flow from the application
of the general rules of the Code on Judicial Procedures.  It is not the legal tradition of
this country to specify in detail in the law itself all the different circumstances to be
taken into account in the decisions in various cases but rather to leave this to theCourts.  This applies also in the case now under discussion, as the specific
circumstances under Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement would naturally have to be
taken into account by the Court.
It should be mentioned that, to the knowledge of the Swedish authorities, no
compulsory licence has been granted in this country under the provisions of the
Patents Act.
(b) The Government has not issued any regulation to the effect that working of the
patented invention to a reasonable extent outside Sweden would be equivalent to
working of that invention in Sweden.  The reason seems to be that there has neverbeen felt any need to use in practice the compulsory licence provisions in the Patent
Act.
Articles 1 and 2 of the Patents Act contain provisions on the condition for obtaining
patent protection in this country.  There are no provisions which relate to the question
whether the products are produced locally or imported.  Consequently, it is not
possible under the Patents Act to discriminate in view of these circumstances.
(c) As mentioned, there is no practical experience of the application of the compulsory
licence provision in this country and it is therefore not possible to give any
interpretation of what a Court would hold in such cases.  Doctrine has, however, dealtto some extent with the application of the provisions of Article 46 on the issuing of
compulsory licences to dependent patent owners.  Thus, doctrine in this field holds
that a condition for the granting of such a licence must be that the dependent
invention in itself represents a considerable technical advance and that account should
be taken of whether the dependent invention lies within the same scope of activitiesas the main invention;  if that is the case - and consequently a competition situation
exists - there must normally be stronger reasons for the granting of a compulsory
licence than if the scopes of activities differ.
Article 46, second paragraph, states that the owner of the main patent for which a
compulsory licence has been issued may obtain a cross-licence to exploit the
dependent invention "unless there are particular reasons to the contrary".  Doctrine
holds that the right to a compulsory li cence is normally mutual in the relationsIP/Q3/SWE/1
Page 7
between the two parties and that the "particular reasons" could apply only in very
special circumstances, for instance, where there is such an imbalance between the
importance of the two inventions or between the areas where they are used that a
possibility for the owner of the main inve ntion to use the dependant invention would
be unreasonable.
6. Please indicate how many compulsory licen ces on a yearly basis have been granted in
Sweden since 1 January 1993.
As mentioned above, to the knowledge of th e Swedish authorities, no compulsory licences
have been issued in this country under the provisions of the Patents Act.
7. Section 79 of the Patents Act provides that inventions that are important to the defence
of the country are governed by separate provisions.  Please explain the nature and legal basis of
these provisions and how they comply with Articles 30 and 31 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Special provisions on so-called defence inventions are included in a special law, namely the
"Act (1971:1078) on Inventions of Importance for th e Defence".  That Act applies to inventions of
military material;  the Government determines in a special Regulation what is meant by such material.
The aim of the Act is to ensure that inventions of importance for the national defence are kept secret.
Thus, such inventions of Swedish origin (meaning inventions which have been made in Sweden or
belong to a natural person domiciled here or a Swedish legal entity) must not be made public until aspecial "Board for Examination of Defence Inventions" has considered whether the invention shall be
kept secret.  Where the Board has found that the invention is of such an importance for the defence of
the country that it shall be kept secret, that invention must not be made public or otherwise be
revealed;  has not such decision been made, the invention is no longer secret.  If a decision has been
made to the effect that the invention has to be kept secret, the inventor shall be compensated fordamages resulting from the decision;  matters relating to such compensation are under the competence
of the City Court of Stockholm and may from there be appealed to the Court of Appeal.  Furthermore,
the inventor may request that the invention shall be surrendered to the State;  if the State has not
complied with this request within four months from the request, the invention shall no longer be kept
secret.  Where a decision has been taken to the effect, that an invention shall be kept secret, anapplication for patent in a foreign county may be made only where the Government admits it;  a
decision to that effect may be made only if the invention will be kept secret also in the foreign
country.
Where a patent application is filed in Sweden relating to a defence invention other than a
Swedish one (according to the definition above), the Patent Office shall ask the Board to considerwhether the invention shall be kept secret;  this does not apply, however, to international patent
applications or European patent applications.  Where the invention is to be kept secret under the law
of another country, the Board shall, under certain conditions, decide that the invention shall not be
made public or be otherwise revealed.
The legislation relating to inventions of importance for the national defence aims, as
mentioned, at keeping such inventions secret.  The provisions related thus mainly to the procedures to
be followed as regards such inventions.  The Act contains provisions on compensation to the inventorfor damages caused by the fact that the invention is to be kept secret and also contains other
safeguards to this effect.  The Act has a limited scope relating only to inventions of importance for the
national security and compensation for any damage caused has to be paid according to what is
determined by a judicial body.  The provisions of the Act are thus fully compatible with the
provisions of Articles 30 and 31 of the TRIPS Agreement.
8. Please explain how Swedish law complies with  the obligations of Article 34 of the TRIPS
Agreement, which requires Members to make available in civil proceedings to enforce a patentIP/Q3/SWE/1
Page 8
the option of shifting the burden of proof regarding use of a patented process to an alleged
infringer who has produced the identical product as that which is produced by a patented
process.
The provision of Article 34 of the TRIPS Agreement on the shift of the  burden of proof in
civil proceedings relating to process patents is implemented through generally applied provisions on
the burden of proof in such proceedings.  This is stated in, for instance, a Bill of 1985
(Bill 1985/86:86) where certain changes were proposed in the provision on the proceedings in patent
cases.  (Earlier an explicit presumption concerning the burden of proof to this effect was included in
the Patents Act but had been abolished in the 1960s).  In the Bill the question of a reintroduction ofsuch an explicit rule of presumption was discussed extensively but was considered unnecessary
because (page 26) it was felt that the provision of evaluation of evidentiary circumstances in such
cases would take care of the conflicting interests in this context in the same way as a presumption rule
would have done.  It is considered that compliance withe the provisions of Article 34 of the TRIPS
Agreement in this respect can be ensured without an explicit legal provision, provided that the resultwould be the same, which is the case in this situation.
[Follow-up question from the US]
In its answer to questions concerning im plementation of Article 34 of the TRIPS
Agreement, the Swedish Government has indicated that Swedish courts comply with thepractice of shifting the burden of proof to a party accused of infringing a patented process
where the product is identical to  that produced by the patented process.  Please provide
citations to and the text of any decisions from Swedish judicial authorities (i.e., courts) that
reflect this practice.
As indicated in the original reply, the preparatory work included in the Bill 1985/86:86 states,
inter alia , that it was felt that the general provision (in the Code of Judicial Procedure) on the
evaluation of evidentiary circumstances in such cases would take care of the conflicting interests in
this context in the same way as a presumption rule would have done.  Statements in legislative Bills
generally carry a great weight at the Courts and serve as their guidance for the application of the
provisions in question.
To the knowledge of the Swedish authorities there are no cases adjudicated in the Supreme
Court or the Courts of Appeal, which have addressed the question of the burden of proof.
As mentioned in replies to other questions the Swedish authorities are presently reviewing a
number of provisions in the Patents Act;  in this context also the question of an explicit provision on
the shift of the burden of proof in the situation under discussion will be considered.
9. Please explain the measures, if any, that have been implemented in Sweden to protect
against unfair competition those parties that ha ve provided confidential test or other data
concerning a pharmaceutical or agricultural  chemical product to Swedish regulatory
authorities pursuant to a request for marketing approval.  Please explain how such measures, if
any, are consistent with Article 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Protection against unfair competition for those parties that have provided confidential
information or other data concerning a pharmaceutical or agricultural chemical product to Swedish
regulatory authorities follows from the provisions of Chapter 8 of the Secrecy Act (Act 1980:100) and
from the corresponding, more detailed provisions in the Secrecy Regulation (Regulation 1980:657).
Thus, Chapter 8, Article 6, of the Secrecy Act provides:  "Secrecy applies, to the extent prescribed by
the Government, in such activities of public authorities which consist of study, planning, price
regulation, grant of authorizations, supervision or assistance, relating to production, commerce,
transportation or otherwise in industrial or commercial activities, as regards information on:IP/Q3/SWE/1
Page 9
(a) private persons' commercial or industrial activities, inventions or scientific research
results, where it may be assumed that a private person will suffer injury if the
information is revealed.
(b) other economic or personal circumstances relating to a person who has entered into a
business relation or other similar relation with the person who is the subject of the
activity of the public authority."
The "Government provisions" referred to in the Secrecy Act are contained in the above-
mentioned Secrecy Regulation.  Section 2 and some provisions in the Annex to the Regulation
address the matters mentioned in Chapter 8 of the Secrecy Act.  Thus, the Annex refers, inter alia , to
information submitted in the context of requests for marketing approval of pharmaceutical products
(item 39 of the Annex) or agricultural chemical products (item 52 of the Annex).  In the latter case
secrecy does not apply in relation to information obtained in supervisory functions where the general
interest in circumstances concerning people's health, the environment or honest practices in commerceor similar general interest is considered to be so important that the information should be disclosed.
(It is to be noted that this exception from the secrecy applied concerns only information obtained in
supervisory functions and not other information, nor does secrecy apply as regards the decisions
themselves in cases having been considered).
Thus the provisions on secrecy prevent divulgation of data submitted in the course of such
activities as referred to in the question.  The protection is further strengthened through the provisions
in the Act on the Protection of Trade Secrets (Act 1990:409), which has also been notified to the
TRIPS Council.  That Act protects, through various types of penalties, any "trade secret" by which is
meant such information concerning the business or industrial relations of a person conducting
business or industrial activities which that person wants to keep secret and the divulgation of whichwould be likely to cause a damage to him from the point of view of competition.
Through the combined effects of the secrecy provisions and the provisions on trade secrets,
Swedish law is fully in conformity with the requirements of Article 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement.
10. Please indicate whether in Swedish courts or in Swedish governmental agencies,
measures exist that serve to protect the confidentiality of information subject to Article 39.3 thathas been provided to the court or the agency by the owner of the information.
The United States authorities have indicated that the reference to Article 39.3 in the question
should actually be a reference to Article 39.2 that is, to the general obligation under the TRIPS
Agreement to protect undisclosed information, subject to the conditions specified in that paragraph.
First, the general provisions on the protection of undisclosed information are contained in the
Act on Protection of Trade Secrets mentioned in connection with the previous question.  They fully
meet the criteria specified in Article 39.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.
As regards the situation where such trade secrets are submitted to a Court or to a government
agency by the owner of the information the following applies.
As mentioned above, Chapter 8 of the Secrecy Act contains detailed provisions of secrecy of
information in order to protect private persons economic interests.  The main provision in this respect
as regards public authorities/governmental agencies is contained in Article 6, which has been quotedabove.  Consequently, secrecy would apply to info rmation supplied to the Government by the owner
of the information, if this is done in the context of  such specific activities as referred to in that
paragraph (e.g. for supervision, etc.) but not if submitted in other contexts;  furthermore secrecyIP/Q3/SWE/1
Page 10
would apply only to information on such specific ci rcumstances that are mentioned in items 1 and 2 of
the paragraph but not to other information.
As regards courts, the provisions on secrecy are contained in Chapter 8, Article 17, of the
Secrecy Act.  These provisions imply essentially the following;  only the main features are indicated
and details omitted.  The first paragraph of that Article provides:  "In any case or matter falling within
the scope of the judicial functions of a Court, or within the scope of its other activities for theadministration of justice, secrecy shall apply within the Court to information about the business and
management activities of a public authority or a private subject, if it can be assumed that the authority
or person would suffer considerable loss, should the information be disclosed".  This is the basic
provision which guarantees the secrecy at the Courts of what is essentially trade secrets.
__________