The current Trade Secrets Act (TSA) (Lag (2018:558) om företagshemligheter) entered into force on 1 July 2018. The TSA implements the EU Directive (2016/943) on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure. However, Sweden is somewhat unique from a European perspective in having a long tradition of trade secret protection, manifested in the previous Act on the Protection of Trade Secrets (Lag (1990:409) om skydd för företagshemligheter). The TSA has many similarities with the previous legislation, meaning there is relatively extensive case law that is helpful in clarifying the extent of trade secret protection in Sweden.

The TSA sets out what information is protected as a trade secret and what constitutes misappropriation of trade secrets (Sections 2-4), provides for liability for damages due to misappropriation (Sections 5-11), allows for courts to order injunctions and take other corrective actions (Sections 12-21), regulates various other issues regarding judicial actions such as statutes of limitation (Sections 22-25) and sets out criminal penalties (Sections 26-28).

While trade secret protection is governed by statutory law, it is common for trade secrets to also be regulated in employment agreements and business-to-business relations. In particular, the 2015 Agreement on the use of non-competition clauses in employment contracts (avtal om användning av konkurrensklausuler i anställningsavtal) applies to employment agreements between parties bound by a collective bargaining agreement. Additional protection is also provided through intellectual property law (see 5.7 Obtaining Information and Evidence), criminal law (see 1.14 Criminal Liability, 2.4 Industrial Espionageand 9.1 Prosecution Process, Penalties and Defences) and labour law (see 3.1 Best Practices for Safeguarding Trade Secrets, 3.2 Exit Interviews, 4.1 Pre-Existing Skills and Expertise and 4.2 New Employees). With regard to public authorities, there are also provisions protecting trade secrets in the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act (Offentlighets- och sekretesslagen (2009:400)).

Section 2 of the TSA refers to information “concerning the business or operational circumstances of a trader’s business or a research institution’s activities”. Accordingly, the TSA has a broad scope of application, and protectable types of information are technology-neutral and not limited to any specific medium. Negative information (ie, information indicating the absence of something) can also constitute a trade secret. There are no formal requirements as to the nature of the information, nor is there any requirement that it be recorded or otherwise materialised. Accordingly, individual persons’ knowledge can also constitute protectable information, even if undocumented. However, (i) employees’ experience and skills acquired during the normal course of their employment and (ii) information about criminal offences or other serious misconduct are expressly excluded from the TSA’s scope and do not constitute trade secrets.

Concrete examples of information that have been found to be protectable as trade secrets (assuming that the required elements for trade secret protection are fulfilled) are:

• customer registers and contracts;
• supplier lists and contracts;
• business plans;
• pricing information;
• financial information such as asset values and budget information;
• technical information, including drawings and models;
• source codes and computer programs;
• market surveys;
• planned advertising campaigns;
• information on reference assignments and consultants;
• know-how; and
• information on administrative matters, including companies’ internal organisation and operations.

TSA Section 2 defines a trade secret as information:

• concerning the business or operational circumstances of a trader’s business or a research institution’s activities;
• which either as a body or in the precise configuration and assembly of its components, is not generally known or readily accessible to persons who normally have access to information of the type in question;
• which the owner has taken reasonable measures to keep secret; and
• the disclosure of which is likely to lead to competitive injury to the owner.

The TSA provides for protection against unauthorised misappropriation of trade secrets, meaning situations where, without the trade secret owner’s consent, trade secrets are:

• accessed, appropriated, or otherwise acquired;
• used (including where someone manufactures goods whose design, properties, function, manufacture, or marketing benefit significantly from an infringed trade secret or when someone offers such goods for sale, places them on the market, or imports, exports, or stores such goods for these purposes); or
• disclosed.

Pursuant to TSA Section 2, the trade secret owner must have taken reasonable measures to keep the information secret for the information to qualify as a trade secret.

Accordingly, trade secret owners must actively take sufficient measures to preserve the information’s secret nature. The required degree of activity is assessed on a case-by-case basis, and measures do not have to be of a particular type or achieve a specific level of protection. However, an owner who is completely passive cannot be considered to have taken reasonable measures. It is also not sufficient for the owner to just refrain from disseminating the information nor that persons with access to the information (eg, employees and business partners) should understand that it is secret already from the nature of the information. The requirement for action by the owner may, however, be set low in relation to information that the owner clearly has reason to keep protected. Conversely, the owner must take stronger measures if it appears more far-fetched that the information merits protection. When assessing whether reasonable measures have been taken it should also be considered how foreseeable an attack was for the trade secret owner.

Another relevant factor is whether the trade secret exists within the framework of a long-term contractual relationship or a temporary business contact with whom the owner has no or limited acquaintance. In long-term business relationships it may be sufficient for the owner to initially clarify the confidential nature, without having to explicitly state that the information is secret each time trade secrets are disclosed.

Normally, a trade secret owner is not required to demonstrate that all employees who have encountered the information have signed confidentiality agreements. Measures may instead consist of workplace instructions on how confidential information should be handled and/or ensuring that certain information is only accessible to people with special authorisation.

Disclosure of a trade secret to employees does not necessarily affect trade secret protection. However, the trade secret owner will need to be able to demonstrate that it has taken reasonable measures to keep the information secret. For example, it is not sufficient that employees who have access to the information should understand that the information constitutes a trade secret merely based on the nature of the information. Appropriate measures include adopting confidentiality policies, limiting access to sensitive information, documenting that employees have been informed and understand that received information is secret and/or requiring employees to enter into confidentiality undertakings.

Independent discovery or reverse engineering of a lawfully obtained product does not constitute misappropriation of trade secrets. The information can remain a (shared) trade secret if the second party also treats it as a secret or lose trade secret protection if publicly disclosed.

However, TSA Section 3 does offer protection against using misappropriated trade secrets to produce goods whose design, properties, function, manufacture, or marketing benefit significantly from the misappropriated trade secret. This could, for example, be the case if a misappropriating party is able to take shortcuts in developing products based on their knowledge of misappropriated trade secrets.

The TSA is technology-neutral and as a result affords the same protection to computer software and/or technology trade secrets as afforded to other types of trade secrets.

There are no time limitations for trade secret protection, meaning that the protection lasts for as long as the information fulfils the requirements in Section 2 of the TSA (see 1.2 What Is Protectable as a Trade Secret).

Controlled disclosure (and/or possibly accidental disclosure to a limited group) does not affect the existence or duration of a trade secret, provided that reasonable measures are taken to maintain secrecy (eg, disclosure is made under confidentiality obligations) and the trade secret does not become generally known.  However, if disclosure (even if accidental) leads to the trade secret becoming generally known, trade secret protection cannot be restored.

Depending on the extent of disclosure, trade secret owners can mitigate the impact by taking legal action swiftly, as courts can issue preliminary injunctions preventing further misappropriation. If information ceases to constitute a trade secret due to misappropriation, courts can prohibit the misappropriator from using the information for a specific period of time pursuant to TSA Section 13. Such prohibitions are intended to prevent the misappropriator from gaining an unfair advantage in the market over the trade secret owner, thereby limiting the damage suffered by the owner. As a benchmark, the prohibition period should be long enough that the misappropriator does not have a competitive advantage at the end of the prohibition period. However, the court cannot prohibit other persons from using the information once disclosed, meaning the information will be available to everyone but the misappropriator.

The underlying information constituting the trade secret can be licensed or shared within a business relation. In such a case, the trade secret will become the other party’s trade secret as well and both parties will have to take reasonable measures to keep the information secret for the information to continue to qualify as a trade secret.

In terms of terminology, although information constituting a trade secret may constitute intellectual property rights, trade secrets only constitute information that fulfils the requirements set out in Section 2 of the TSA. Strictly speaking, trade secrets are therefore not considered intellectual property rights in and of themselves.

A fundamental difference between intellectual property rights and trade secrets is that trade secrets do not entail exclusive rights like those provided by intellectual property rights. Trade secrets only protect against unlawful misappropriation, but not against, eg, independent development and/or reverse engineering. Trade secret protection also differs from intellectual property protection in that there are no formal requirements as to trade secrets’ content or characteristics, there are no qualification requirements (meaning even trivial information can be protected) and trade secrets do not require formalities such as registration (which often entail disclosure). Neither can trade secrets be formally assigned or licensed, as with intellectual property rights, but only shared subject to agreement on the use and disclosure of the trade secrets.

Although trade secrets will lose their value and protection upon disclosure, trade secret protection is not necessarily limited in time if secrecy can be maintained. Accordingly, trade secret protection can be more extensive than that of intellectual property rights under some circumstances.

Provided that an intellectual property right is not of a type that by its nature entails that the requirements in Section 2 of the TSA are not fulfilled, trade secret protection can be asserted in combination with intellectual property rights. The most common example of this is copyright, which does not require registration, therefore allowing it to be maintained confidentially. However, intellectual property rights that require registration or publication (entailing disclosure) cannot be combined with trade secret protection, as the secrecy requirement is not fulfilled in such a case.

That being said, intellectual property rights can intersect with trade secret protection insofar as work produced before the intellectual property right(s) is established could qualify as a trade secret. For example, information regarding an invention can qualify as a trade secret before the patent is published (but after publication, the trade secret will cease to exist insofar as it is published). Also, undisclosed information can continue to qualify as a trade secret, thereby offering supplementary protection.

Sweden has a longstanding tradition of legal protection for trade secrets (see 1.1 Sources of Legal Protection for Trade Secrets), meaning that there has generally not been a need for other legal theories in this regard. That being said, both the TSA and its precursor explicitly only apply to unauthorised misappropriation. Actions that constitute misappropriation can therefore in principle also constitute grounds for claims under other legal frameworks. For example, intellectual property rights can under some circumstances be asserted in combination with trade secret protection as explained in 1.12 Overlapping IP Rights.

Attacks on trade secrets could also lead to claims based on breaches of fiduciary duty and/or breach of contract and the duty of loyalty. Pursuant to Chapter 10, Section 5 of the Swedish Criminal Code, employees in positions of trust can be liable for breaches of fiduciary duty, provided that the fiduciary used its special position in relation to the principal’s contractual counterparties. It is also possible (and not uncommon) to bring parallel claims based on breach of contractual confidentiality obligations or the general duty of loyalty. In employment relationships, claims are regularly based on both trade secret misappropriation and the employee having breached their general duty of loyalty. Employees’ duty of confidentiality in employment relationships includes not only information that constitutes trade secrets but every kind of information whose disclosure is likely to harm the employer.

Additionally, TSA section 9 provides for secondary liability for third parties who (knowingly or negligently) use or disclose trade secrets that they ought to realise were previously attacked by another party. Under some circumstances, this could provide a functional equivalent to tortious interference with contract, although this presupposes misappropriation in an earlier stage.

As of 1 January 2026, TSA Sections 26-27 will provide for criminal penalties for persons who commit the following offences:

• engages, or attempts or prepares to engage, in corporate espionage, meaning intentionally and unlawfully obtaining access to trade secrets;
• uses or discloses, or attempts or prepares to use or disclose, technical trade secrets unlawfully; or
• deals in trade secrets unlawfully, meaning intentionally acquiring trade secrets with the knowledge that the person providing the trade secret (or any person prior to them) obtained access to the trade secret by means of corporate espionage.

For corporate espionage, criminal penalties range from punitive fines to prison sentences of up to six years, depending on the severity of the misappropriation and considering factors such as whether the offence was of a particularly dangerous nature, involved significant value, or entailed particularly palpable loss.  For unlawful use or disclosure of technical trade secrets, criminal penalties range from punitive fines to prison sentences of up to six years, depending on the severity of the misappropriation. For unlawful dealing in trade secrets, criminal penalties range from punitive fines to prison sentences of up to four years, depending on the severity of the misappropriation.

Parties who commit corporate espionage, use or disclose technical trade secrets unlawfully or deal in trade secrets unlawfully shall also compensate for the loss that is incurred because of the offence or through the use or disclosure of the trade secret pursuant to TSA Section 5.

Corporate espionage relates to situations where trade secrets have been accessed unlawfully, meaning that the provision is not applicable if the perpetrator had authorised access. However, following amendments to the TSA taking effect from 1 January 2026, new criminal sanctions were introduced for unlawful disclosure and use of technical trade secrets, meaning information intended to form part of the production of goods, provision of services or the development of either. The new sanctions take aim at situations where there has been unauthorised misappropriation of technical trade secrets by those with lawful access through employment or comparable participation in a business or research institution, and those receiving information in connection with a business relationship. Further, the amendments expand the crime of unlawful dealing in trade secrets to also include when someone knowingly acquires a technical trade secret previously revealed through the new unlawful disclosure offence.

Pursuant to TSA Section 9, a person can become liable to compensate incurred loss if they intentionally or negligently misappropriate a trade secret which they should have known was previously misappropriated by another person. The prior misappropriation can have occurred abroad under any other jurisdiction (including non-EU countries), provided that the prior attack objectively constitutes misappropriation under the TSA.

TSA Section 3 defines misappropriation as a trade secret, without the trade owner’s consent, being:

• accessed, appropriated, or otherwise acquired;
• used; or
• disclosed.

Use of a trade secret includes manufacturing, selling, placing on the market, importing, exporting or storing goods for those purposes, whose design, characteristics, functioning, manufacture or marketing significantly benefits from misappropriated trade secrets.

The threshold for misappropriation is set low, with the key aspect being for the trade secret owner to show that some sort of activity has taken place in relation to the trade secret which was not permitted by the trade secret owner. The trade secret owner does not need to show actual use of the trade secret.

The basic elements of a trade secret misappropriation claim do not fundamentally differ when an employee is involved. TSA Section 7 sets out employees’ liability for misappropriation of the employer’s trade secrets. Employees must compensate their employer if the employee (intentionally or negligently) misappropriates the employer’s trade secret(s) which the employee learned in the course of their employment under such circumstances that the employee should have known that they were not permitted to disclose it. The trade secret must be so closely related to the employee’s duties that it is covered by the duty of loyalty arising from the employment relationship.

However, if employees use or disclose trade secrets after termination of the employment, they are only liable if there are special reasons. In exceptional cases, employees can also be held liable for appropriating their former employers’ trade secrets by, eg, refusing to return information containing trade secrets (noting, however, that memorised information can also constitute trade secrets).

As explained in 1.2 What Is Protectable as a Trade Secret, employees’ experience and skills acquired during the normal course of their employment are expressly excluded from the TSA’s scope and do not constitute trade secrets.

The TSA does not set out specific obligations between joint venturers with respect to trade secrets. However, pursuant to TSA Section 6, any person who intentionally or negligently misappropriates trade secrets that they have learned in confidence in connection with a commercial relationship shall compensate for the loss incurred because of their action. The term “commercial relationship” is interpreted broadly and will likely apply to information shared between joint venturers. That being said, the TSA does not impose any inherent duty of confidentiality and how business operators distribute and utilise shared information is primarily a contractual matter. However, a certain confidentiality duty also follows from general contractual principles according to which contracting parties must not act in a way that causes damage to counterparties.

As described in 1.14 Criminal Liability, the TSA sets out criminal liability for corporate espionage, defined as intentionally and unlawfully obtaining access to trade secrets.

Liability for corporate espionage arises already when the perpetrator gains access to the trade secret(s), meaning that it is irrelevant whether the trade secret is also exploited or disclosed. Corporate espionage can consist of a person obtaining trade secret(s) in any number of different ways but only applies to information which the perpetrator did not already have access to. For criminal liability to arise, the perpetrator must have taken intentional action, meaning accidental access does not lead to criminal liability.

A prerequisite for criminal liability for corporate espionage is that the perpetrator does not have lawful access to the trade secret. If the perpetrator is an employee, criminal liability presupposes that the employee gains access to information that is clearly outside the scope of their duties. However, criminal liability does not arise if an employee obtains access to “surplus information” that is available at the workplace where the employee is normally entitled to be or in material that the employee uses during his or her duties. Pursuant to case law (NJA 2001 p 362), a person who has lawful access to a trade secret does not commit corporate espionage by copying the information. However, such acts may constitute unlawful use or disclosure of technical trade secrets, which is subject to criminal sanctions as of 1 January 2026.

From a Swedish perspective, there are no particular best practices for safeguarding trade secrets. Instead, international best practices are equally applicable in the Swedish context.

As explained above, trade secret owners are required to take reasonable measures to protect trade secrets. By way of general comments, what constitutes reasonable measures will vary depending on the circumstances of each case, including industry practice and the nature of the information. Trade secret protection will to some extent be contingent upon the misappropriating party’s knowledge that the information was secret. Accordingly, the more and/or strict measures that trade secret owners take, the better the scope of protection.

As a starting point, trade secret owners should identify what information should be considered and protected as trade secrets. Trade secret owners should then adopt appropriate physical and technical measures to secure such information and ensure that access to the information is limited to only those people who need it. Ideally, there should be systems to monitor which people access information that constitutes trade secrets.

Trade secret owners should adopt clear guidelines regarding proper handling of information, which should preferably also allow the trade secret owner to access employees’ devices. Ideally, trade secret owners should also provide both introductory and ongoing training for employees to ensure that they are aware of their obligations both in relation to handling information as well as recognising suspicious behaviour.

Although not a strict requirement, it is advisable for trade secret owners to enter into confidentiality agreements with both employees and third parties who may receive or have access to trade secrets. For key employees, the trade secret owner might also consider adding non-compete clauses to their employment agreements.

Although there are no strict requirements in this regard, it is advisable for employers to conduct exit interviews with employees to emphasise the employee’s continuing obligations with regard to trade secrets. Employers could also use such interviews to clarify the boundary between trade secrets and the employee’s general knowledge (see 4.1 Pre-Existing Skills and Expertise).

TSA Section 2 explicitly states that experience and skills which employees have gained in the normal course of their employment do not constitute trade secrets, thereby removing them from the scope of trade secret protection.

By way of demarcation, information that anyone with adequate training can translate into practical results is considered to belong to the employer. However, if information is linked to the individual in such a way that it cannot be transferred to another person through instructions or guidance, it is considered personal and not to belong to the employer. Further, information that is typically not linked to anything that can be considered unique or specific to the employer is generally not considered to constitute trade secrets.

Swedish law does not recognise the doctrine of “inevitable disclosure”. In general, the duty of loyalty that arises out of an employment ends with it and former employees as a main rule have no remaining obligations to their former employers unless specifically agreed upon.

From a Swedish perspective, there are no particular employer best practices for minimising the likelihood that they will be subject to trade secret misappropriation claims in connection with hiring new employees. Instead, international best practices are equally applicable in the Swedish context.

By way of general comments, it is in employers’ interest to avoid being contaminated by new employees’ potential knowledge of trade secrets from previous employers. It is therefore advisable to conduct appropriate due diligence on candidates’ current obligations (including their loyalty obligations and extent of knowledge of the previous employer’s operations) and emphasise during onboarding that candidates are expected to not bring trade secrets from their previous employment.

Civil lawsuits based on a breach of the TSA can be initiated by the trade secret owner. If a trade secret owner acts on its own, there are no prerequisites that must be taken before filing a lawsuit alleging misappropriation of trade secrets. However, the generally accepted and most common procedure is to initiate a civil lawsuit by sending a notification and/or cease-and-desist letter to the misappropriating party.

If the trade secret owner retains legal counsel, the Swedish Bar Association’s rules state that counterparties must be given reasonable time to consider a claim and the possibility of reaching an amicable settlement before legal action is taken. However, legal action may be taken without prior notice if a delay would entail a risk of loss of rights or other damage to the client, or if there are other special reasons for taking such action without delay.

Pursuant to TSA Section 24, an action for damages pursuant to the TSA may only pertain to loss that occurred during the five years immediately preceding commencement of the action. Accordingly, the limitation period starts when the damage occurs, even if this is later than the underlying act.

An action for an injunction or other measures pursuant to the TSA (eg, return or destruction of information and/or goods) must be commenced within five years of the date on which the trade secret owner became, or should have become, aware of the misappropriation or imminent misappropriation of the trade secret on which the action is based.

The process for initiating a trade secret lawsuit is the same as for other civil claims and is initiated by filing a summons application with the competent court (see 5.4 Jurisdiction of the Courts). The summons application (and the underlying power of attorney) must be signed by the plaintiff or his legal counsel, either using wet ink or the e-signature provided through the Swedish courts’ electronic filing system.

There is no specialised venue nor jurisdiction rules applicable to trade secret claims. Accordingly, summons applications for trade secret claims must be filed with the district court that is competent pursuant to the general jurisdiction rules of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (the SCJP). For civil claims, this is normally the court of the respondent’s domicile.

However, trade secret litigation commonly involves employment relationships, in which case they fall under the jurisdiction of the specialised Labour Court (Arbetsdomstolen). The Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction in cases between parties covered by collective bargaining agreements and concerning disputes regarding such agreements. The Labour Court is also the second (and final) instance in other labour law disputes if a case is appealed from the district court.

Trade secret claims can also be pursued in arbitration proceedings.

There are no specific initial pleading standards applicable to trade secret claims. The summons application must include information on the claim, the circumstances invoked as grounds for the claim, information about the evidence invoked and what is to be proven by each piece of evidence, and information about circumstances that make the court competent.

To some extent, it is possible to allege facts “on information and belief” and substantiate claims further in the continued proceedings if the defendant objects. However, this could have a negative impact on the allocation of legal costs if it delays the proceedings or causes the counterparty to incur additional legal costs. If the trade secret owner requests that the court impose a preliminary injunction, the trade secret owner must show probable cause, meaning it would be unwise not to substantiate claims to the extent possible.

The TSA does not provide any mechanisms for seizing accused products or other evidence during ongoing proceedings. However, as explained in 1.12 Overlapping IP Rights, information constituting trade secrets can also enjoy separate protection as intellectual property rights, which does offer seizure mechanisms. For example, if information is also protected by copyright (as has successfully been argued in relation to, eg, customer databases), courts can order infringement investigations. The purpose of such investigations is to search for objects or documents that can be assumed to be of importance for the copyright infringement for the purpose of preserving evidence. Infringement investigations are carried out by the Swedish Enforcement Authority.

Motions for infringement proceedings can be submitted during or before legal proceedings have been initiated. Infringement investigations can be ordered ex parte if a delay entails a risk that objects or documents of importance for the investigation may be removed, destroyed or distorted. Otherwise, the counterparty will be asked to respond.

Courts will only order infringement investigations if the arguments in favour of the measure outweigh the inconvenience or other harm that it will cause to the affected party or any other opposing interest. Additionally, the applicant must provide security to the court for the injury that may be incurred by the counterparty. However, if the applicant is not able to provide security, the court may release them from the requirement.

Pursuant to the general procedural rules in the SCJP, courts can also order provisional attachment of property or make orders for measures suitable to secure an applicant’s claim if a party shows probable cause. However, such measures do not give the claimant the opportunity to examine seized material and cannot be used to secure evidence.

In addition to the possibility of obtaining evidence through infringement investigations (see 5.6 Seizure Mechanisms), evidence can also be obtained through the general evidentiary rules in the SCJP. Courts can order holders (including third parties) of written documents that can be assumed to have evidentiary value to disclose such evidence.

Pursuant to Chapter 36, Section 2 of the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act (Offentlighets- och sekretesslagen), confidentiality applies in courts for information about individuals’ business or operating conditions, inventions or research results if the person to whom the information relates can be assumed to suffer considerable damage if the information is disclosed. In many cases, trade secrets will fulfil these requirements and as a result be covered by confidentiality when disclosed in litigation. Although court proceedings are normally public, they can be held in camera if information protected by confidentiality pursuant to the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act can be assumed to be disclosed.

Normally, confidentiality applies to information in public documents for twenty years at the most. However, this limitation does not apply to information in public documents that appear in trade secret cases or matters.

Additionally, TSA Section 8 explicitly provides for liability for damages for parties and counsel who, intentionally or negligently, use or disclose trade secrets learned because of a judicial decision. If they allow a third person to learn the trade secret, such third person will become liable if they use or disclose the trade secret. Additionally, any person who uses or discloses a trade secret learned through in camera judicial proceedings must compensate for losses incurred due to their action.

From a Swedish perspective, there are no particular best practices that a defendant should pursue. Instead, international best practices are equally applicable in the Swedish context.

Defences will vary depending on the circumstances of the case, but on a general level, defences in trade secret cases will normally entail showing that the information does not constitute trade secrets and/or that there has not been any unlawful misappropriation. It is advisable that parties take adequate measures at a pre-litigation stage, in particular securing evidence that can be used to rebut any later allegations of trade secret misappropriation. This includes having relevant confidentiality undertakings in place, informing employees of their obligations, keeping logs to document information sharing and documenting own R&D efforts.

Swedish civil procedure does not have a direct equivalent to US-style dispositive motions. Unless cases are manifestly without merit, which is rare, Swedish courts generally proceed to a full hearing and judgment on the merits rather than disposing of cases on procedural motions before trial. That said, cases can be dismissed due to, eg, procedural defects (such as lack of jurisdiction) or obstacles (such as res judicata).

It is not possible to provide a general estimate of the expected costs for trade secret litigation as this will vary from case to case depending on factors such as the amount of evidence and the hourly rates of representatives. However, by way of rough approximation, costs can typically be expected to be approximate to legal costs in intellectual property rights litigation. In accordance with the CCBE’s Code of Conduct for European Lawyers, the Swedish Bar Association’s rules explicitly forbid lawyers from entering into fee agreement with clients that entitle the lawyer to a share of the results of the assignment unless there are special reasons for doing so (such as access to justice). Litigation financing is, however, available and well-established in Sweden.

Civil proceedings are as a main rule decided by a panel of three legally qualified judges. Criminal cases are normally decided by a panel consisting of one judge and three lay judges.

The trial process in trade secret cases does not differ from normal civil claim trials. As a main rule, cases are decided after a main hearing. However, courts can without a main hearing dispose of cases other than by judgment, enter default judgment, enter a judgment based upon a party’s consent to or concession of a claim, confirm a settlement, or enter a judgment if a main hearing is not needed in view of the inquiry into the case and neither party requests a main hearing. At the hearing, the court will hear the parties’ arguments and invoked witness testimony live. The trial length will vary from case to case.

Swedish law allows for expert witness testimony to be presented at trial. Expert witness testimony shall as a main rule be submitted in the form of a written statement. Expert witnesses who have submitted a written statement shall also be examined orally if the court finds it necessary or if a party requests it and the examination is not manifestly without importance. The cost of expert witness testimony will vary from case to case and depending on the complexity and scope of the matter.

Courts can impose preliminary injunctions pursuant to TSA Sections 14-16. To obtain a preliminary injunction, the applicant must show probable cause that a trade secret has been misappropriated or that misappropriation is imminent and there is reasonable cause to believe that the misappropriating party will diminish the trade secret’s value by continued misappropriation. The applicant will also need to provide security for the other party’s potential loss due to the injunction. The other party will be given an opportunity to comment, unless there is a danger in delay, in which case an injunction can be issued ex parte. The injunction will remain in place until the case has been conclusively resolved or the court orders otherwise.

If the misappropriation constitutes use of a trade secret which does not lead to the trade secret being disclosed, the court can dismiss an injunction motion or revoke an injunction order if the misappropriating party lodges security for the compensation which he or she may become liable to pay to the trade secret owner.

If the trade secret owner shows probable cause that a trade secret has been misappropriated with the result that the information no longer constitutes a trade secret, the court may impose an injunction prohibiting the misappropriating party from using the information until such time as the case has been conclusively resolved or the court has ordered otherwise.

Misappropriating parties can be liable to compensate losses incurred due to the misappropriation pursuant to TSA Sections 5-10. In addition to the losses incurred, consideration will also be given to the trade secret owner’s interest in preventing unauthorised misappropriation and to non-financial circumstances when determining the compensation amount.

A trade secret owner can claim compensation for economic loss, pure pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss (ie, general/moral damages). Punitive damages as such are not available under Swedish law. However, general/moral damages are often awarded even if no economic damage has occurred or been proven. The aim of the assessment is to determine a reasonable amount that constitutes an effective sanction. By way of general guidance, total damages should not be set so low that misappropriation of trade secrets is a financially better alternative than acquiring them legitimately. Examples of factors that are commonly considered when assessing damages under the TSA are:

• the trade secret owner’s loss of profit;
• the misappropriating party’s unauthorised profit;
• costs incurred by the trade secret holder due to the attack;
• depreciation in value;
• damage to reputation; and
• non-pecuniary damage.

General/moral damages are usually determined as a lump sum without detailed assessments or calculations and constitute a form of “top-up” in addition to economic damages. They serve as both reparations for the trade secret owner and a corresponding censure of the aggressor. In principle, trade secret misappropriation will always cause compensable damage as even a party’s interest in not having its trade secrets misappropriated constitutes compensable damage. Swedish case law also indicates that a shared burden of proof is applied for claims based on the TSA. If a trade secret owner can meet its initial burden of proof by showing that its trade secrets have probably been misappropriated, the respondent will have to show that it is probable that there was no misappropriation.

Successful respondents cannot recover damages under the TSA. However, general procedural rules may allow recovery of litigation costs and damages due to overturned injunctions.

Courts can issue permanent injunctions against persons who have misappropriated a trade secret or have acted in such a manner that misappropriation is imminent. If a person has caused information to no longer constitute a trade secret (eg, due to disclosure), courts can also prohibit such person from using the information for a specific period of time. Pursuant to the preparatory works, the length of time will vary from case to case but will be determined based also on a proportionality assessment. The TSA does not stipulate any limitation in time for such injunctions.

TSA Section 17 implements Article 11(1)(c) and Article 12(1)(c)-(d) of EU Directive (2016/943) and allows courts to order misappropriating parties (or parties who have acted in such a manner that misappropriation is imminent) to surrender documents or objects containing the trade secret to the trade secret owner. If a document or object cannot be surrendered without prejudice, courts may instead order that it shall be recalled from the market, destroyed, modified or subjected to any other measure designed to prevent misappropriation, regardless of whether the document or object is still possessed by the misappropriating party. This also applies in respect of goods whose design, characteristics, functioning, production process and marketing benefit significantly from misappropriated trade secrets, notwithstanding that the goods do not contain the trade secret.

A winning party can recover its attorneys’ fees in civil litigation to the extent that they were reasonably incurred to safeguard the party’s interest. Awards of attorneys’ fees are sought in the same way as other litigation costs (see 7.5 Costs).

In general, the loser pays principle applies. However, courts can deviate from the loser pays principle if the winning party initiated unnecessary proceedings and/or caused costs for the opposing party.

The winning party is entitled to compensation for litigation costs fully covering the costs of preparation for trial and presentation of the action to the extent that the costs were reasonably incurred to safeguard the party’s interest. This includes items such as fees for representation, counsel, time and effort expended by the party and negotiations aimed at settling issues in dispute with direct bearing on the action’s outcome. Compensation for litigation costs includes interest running from the date of the court’s award until the date of payment.

To claim compensation for litigation costs, a party must present a compensation claim before the proceedings have concluded, also stating the nature of the costs.

Either party can appeal first instance decisions in accordance with the general procedural rules for civil law cases. District court decisions are appealed to the courts of appeal, or the Labour Court if the case relates to a labour law dispute. A dispute will be handled as a labour law dispute if an employee or former employee is a party. Decisions from the Labour Court cannot be appealed as the Labour Court is the last instance in labour disputes.

Appeals must be submitted to the court that rendered the decision within three weeks of the court’s decision and are subject to leave to appeal being granted. Leave of appeal is granted if there are grounds to doubt the correctness of the district court’s decision, it is not possible to assess the correctness of the district court’s decision without such permission being granted, the case has prejudicial value, or there are other special reasons for allowing the appeal.

The length of appeal proceedings will vary from case to case. Pursuant to the Swedish courts’ official goals and reporting requirements, decisions on leave to appeal and final decisions should be rendered within two months and ten months respectively from the date on which the case was received by the appeal courts in at least 75% of cases.

Appeal courts conduct both a full factual and legal review. Appeals can be decided on papers, but appeal courts can also hold oral hearings. As a main rule there is no new examination of witnesses at the appeal stage, and the courts will instead only review recordings from the first instance. The starting point for appeal proceedings is that all issues of claims, facts, and evidence should have been comprehensively addressed in the first instance. Consequently, there is little or no direct “preparation” at the appeal stage, and as a main rule parties are not allowed to raise new claims, grounds and/or evidence.

Issues must be raised and argued in the first instance and the scope of appeal is limited by the first instance proceedings meaning new claims and grounds are generally precluded.

Criminal prosecutions for trade secret theft are initiated by filing a police report. The police or the prosecutor will conduct a preliminary investigation, and charges will be filed if there are sufficient grounds based on the evidence. Sweden adheres to mandatory prosecution. The possible defences against criminal charges are essentially the same as for civil cases (see 5.9 Defending Against Allegations of Misappropriation). However, to be held criminally liable, intent must also be shown.

As explained in 1.14 Criminal Liability, the TSA provides for criminal penalties due to industrial espionage and unlawful dealing in a trade secret. The penalties range from punitive fines to prison sentences of up to six and four years, respectively. Additionally, the new offences of unlawful exploitation and unlawful disclosure of technical trade secrets are criminalised as of 1 January 2026. Such offences are subject to penalties ranging from punitive fines to prison sentences of up to six years.

There are no specific ADR mechanisms available for trade secret disputes, but parties are of course free to agree to resolve their disputes through negotiation, settlement, mediation, or arbitration. Such mechanisms have the advantage that the procedure can be confidential, resolved faster and give the parties more autonomy.

Additionally, Swedish courts will encourage parties to settle a dispute, where possible. The courts can also confirm parties’ settlement in a judgment.

Only courts can issue sanctioned interim measures. However, if disputes are subject to arbitration proceedings, a party may, for example, lodge requests to the district courts that witnesses should be heard under oath or that documents should be produced.