Trade-secret injunctions: a window closes on 11 August

On 8 August 2026, Law No. 145 of 7 August 2026 was published — in force from today — converting Decree-Law No. 100 of 12 June 2026 without amendments (our translation throughout, from the original Italian). The decree rewrites two lines of the Industrial Property Code, concerning anyone who has obtained, or is subject to, an interim injunction protecting a trade secret, with a transitional forfeiture term that, by our calculation, falls on 11 August. Not a new change — the decree has been in force since 12 June — but final as of today: anyone waiting for conversion no longer has a reason to. Regulatory reading, not legal advice: qualifying your own measure is for the lawyer handling the case.

The line that changed

Article 2(1) of the decree replaces paragraph 4 of Article 132 of the Industrial Property Code (Legislative Decree No. 30/2005), headed “Anticipation of interim protection and the relationship between interim and merits proceedings”. The new paragraph 4, in full:

“For urgent measures issued under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and for other interim measures capable of anticipating the effects of the judgment on the merits, without prejudice to the parties’ right to commence merits proceedings, where such proceedings have not been commenced within the mandatory term under paragraph 2, or where, having commenced, they are subsequently discontinued, the measures are declared ineffective if, within the mandatory term of thirty days running from the expiry of the term under that same paragraph 2 or from the discontinuance of the merits proceedings, the party against whom the measure was issued files an application for a declaration of ineffectiveness.”

The same replacement, in parallel wording, applies to paragraph 4 of Article 162-bis of Law No. 633/1941 on copyright.

The neighbouring paragraphs give the context. Paragraph 2 sets the term for commencing merits proceedings — twenty working days or thirty-one calendar days, whichever is longer. Paragraph 3: if that term passes, or the proceedings are discontinued, “the interim measure loses its effect” — automatically, no application, no window.

The new paragraph 4 carves out an exception for one category: urgent measures and those “capable of anticipating the effects of the judgment on the merits” — of attenuated dependency, which used to remain in force even without merits proceedings. Ineffectiveness is no longer automatic: it must be declared on application by the party against whom the measure was issued, within thirty mandatory days. Whoever obtained the measure no longer loses it by default: only if the other party notices and acts in time. Whoever is subject to it now has an express tool — with a term that, left to lapse, entrenches the measure.

The transitional rule, and the day count

It is Article 2(3) of the decree that explains why the date matters today. In full:

“For interim measures already granted as at the date this decree enters into force, to which Article 132, paragraph 4, of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 2005, or Article 162-bis, paragraph 4, of Law No. 633 of 1941 applies, if the parties against whom those measures were granted file an application for their revocation or a declaration of ineffectiveness, in the form provided by Article 669-novies of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judge who issued the measure, on application by the party in whose favour the measures were granted, restores that party to the term for commencing merits proceedings within the forfeiture term provided, respectively, by Article 132, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 2005 and Article 162-bis, paragraph 1, of Law No. 633 of 1941, the effectiveness of the original measures granted remaining unaffected. The application for revocation and for a declaration of ineffectiveness referred to in the first sentence must be filed, on pain of forfeiture, within sixty days from the date this decree enters into force.”

The decree entered into force on 12 June 2026: sixty days from that date fall on 11 August. This is our own calculation on the text, not a date written into the law — the exact computation of a procedural term should be confirmed with your lawyer before any decision depends on it.

The mechanism cuts both ways. Whoever is subject to a paragraph-4 injunction issued before 12 June has a window — now closing — to seek its revocation. But doing so lets the judge restore the other party to the term for the merits, “the effectiveness of the original measures granted remaining unaffected”: not a shortcut, but a step that reopens the merits while the measure stays in force meanwhile.

Why it affects trade secrets

Article 132 also holds the paragraphs on trade secrets under Article 98. Paragraph 5-bis: “the court may, on application by a party, as an alternative to interim measures, authorise the party concerned to keep using the trade secrets by lodging suitable security for any damages suffered by the legitimate holder. Disclosure to third parties of the trade secrets so authorised is prohibited.”

Paragraph 5-quater, decisive, opens by citing the provision just rewritten: “Without prejudice to paragraph 4, if the interim measures adopted to protect the trade secrets referred to in Article 98 become ineffective, under paragraph 3, for failure to commence merits proceedings within the mandatory term under paragraph 2, or lose effect due to an act or omission of the applicant, or if it is subsequently established that the unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of those trade secrets did not exist, the applicant is required to compensate the damage caused by the measures adopted.”

“Without prejudice to paragraph 4” closes the loop: the compensation rule for trade secrets points straight at the provision just replaced. Anyone who obtained a measure to protect a secret, and has not yet commenced merits proceedings, has a specific exposure: if the measure becomes ineffective — under paragraph 4, or for the other reasons in paragraph 5-quater — the damage caused by the measures falls on them.

How we check it

We do not litigate, and we do not give legal opinions: we keep the record litigators need. Every secret we classify as such has, in our system, a file — protective measures, who had access and when, open disputes and their dates: injunction issued, merits term expiring, any application for revocation. We do not replace the lawyer: we make sure the sixty or thirty days here sit in a monitored calendar, not a shared folder someone checks when they remember to.

See the service · Talk to an engineer

What to check, in-house

Log the interim measures in force, obtained and suffered, with date of issue and of any merits proceedings.
Check with your lawyer whether each one is urgent or “capable of anticipating the effects of the judgment on the merits”.
Bring the sixty-day term to your lawyer’s attention before it expires.
For trade secrets, reread paragraph 5-quater and assess the compensation exposure linked to any ineffectiveness.
Check that the documentation — who had access, when, under which measures — can be reconstructed: it underpins classification under Article 98.

The two axes, applied

The measures that make information a secret under Article 98 — access control, tracking, document classification — become a control running on the client’s own systems, with a dated trail to produce in court or at an inspection: not an opinion on paper, but a record that shows who saw what, and when.

The same system holds documents, archives, management software, access records and contracts together in a single operating model, on which AI agents execute decisions with an operator in command, for large enterprises, defence, public administration and healthcare. When a deadline approaches, the answer to “which measures, on which information, with which dates” arrives in hours — always in two modes: on-premise, on autonomous machines with no deep integration into the client’s network, or dedicated cloud with a data centre in Italy, always with shared management.

Anyone wanting to go further will find the natural next step in what it takes to prove it in court; for those working with drawings, bills of materials and processes to protect, the sector starting point is manufacturing.

If you have an interim measure under way, whether obtained or suffered, and want to understand where it stands against these terms, the first session comes at no cost. Talk to us.