The [UK High Court](https://blog.law.cornell.edu/library/2013/08/08/supreme-court-blogs)'s decision on June 26, 2026, allows a crypto trading company to pursue litigation against Tether, a well-known company in the cryptocurrency sector. This decision clarifies the limits of trade secret protection in the context of failed joint ventures. Companies involved in crypto joint ventures are immediately affected, with the most significant practical consequence being the need to reassess their trade secret protection measures.

Full News Breakdown

The dispute was triggered by a failed bitcoin mining joint venture between Tether and the crypto trading company. The core disagreement centered on the alleged theft of trade secrets by Tether. The court ultimately decided in favor of the crypto trading company, allowing them to pursue their claim.

• Case Name: Not specified

• Court: UK High Court

• Date: June 26, 2026

• Citation: Not specified

• EU Instruments: Not specified

• UK Legislation Cited: Not specified

• Key Provisions: Trade secret protection in joint ventures

• Primary Legal Issue: Trade secret theft

• Applicant Arguments: The crypto trading company alleged that Tether stole their trade secrets

• Respondent Arguments: Tether argued that they did not steal any trade secrets

• Court Reasoning: The court found that the crypto trading company had a valid claim and allowed them to pursue litigation

• Holding: The court blocked Tether's bid to halt the crypto trade secrets claim

• Operative Order: The crypto trading company can proceed with their claim

• Practical Outcome: Companies involved in crypto joint ventures may want to reassess their trade secret protection measures

How Does This Affect You?

The court specifically resolved that trade secrets can be protected in joint ventures within the cryptocurrency sector. This creates a compliance obligation for companies to protect their trade secrets. Companies may consider implementing robust confidentiality agreements and access controls to safeguard their interests. The decision affects companies involved in crypto joint ventures, highlighting the importance of trade secret protection in such ventures.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• When drafting joint venture agreements, lawyers may find it useful to include robust trade secret protection clauses to safeguard their clients' interests.

• In pending cases involving trade secret theft, lawyers may consider the implications of this ruling and adjust their strategy accordingly.

• Lawyers may want to review the potential risks of trade secret theft in joint ventures and advise their clients to take proactive measures to protect their trade secrets.

• The decision provides an opportunity to examine the doctrine of trade secret protection in joint ventures, including comparable cases such as Coco v. AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd. (1969) and Saltman Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Campbell Engineering Co. Ltd. (1948).

For Law Students

The decision is particularly relevant for the study of trade secret protection in joint ventures. The core legal doctrine or distinction students should focus on is the protection of trade secrets in the context of failed joint ventures.
The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

• Intellectual Property Law, specifically trade secret protection

• The doctrine of trade secret protection in joint ventures

• Comparable cases such as Coco v. AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd. (1969) and Saltman Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Campbell Engineering Co. Ltd. (1948)

• The EU or UK law constitutional or statutory interpretation question this ruling raises or leaves open: How do the UK's trade secret protection laws apply to joint ventures in the cryptocurrency sector?

For Businesses

• Companies involved in crypto joint ventures may want to consider reviewing their trade secret protection measures and implementing robust confidentiality agreements and access controls.

• Businesses may find it useful to review their employees' understanding of trade secret protection and the potential implications of theft.

• Companies may want to conduct regular audits to ensure that their trade secrets are adequately protected, taking into account regulatory considerations.

Key Takeaways

• The legal principle established: Trade secrets can be protected in joint ventures within the cryptocurrency sector.

• The practice consequence: Lawyers may find it useful to include robust trade secret protection clauses in joint venture agreements.

• The enforcement consequence: Regulators and courts can hold companies accountable for trade secret theft in joint ventures.

• What to watch next: The development of new trade secret protection laws and regulations in the UK and EU.

• Companies involved in crypto joint ventures may want to review their trade secret protection measures before entering into new joint ventures to avoid potential legal disputes.

References

1. Supreme court blogs: Going beyond the U.S. » InfoBrief

2. An Introduction to Trade Secrets Law in the United States

3. [PDF] Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1969)

4. FTC v. Morton Salt Co. | 334 U.S. 37 (1948)

5. Intellectual Property Law: A Brief Introduction - Congress.gov

6. Court of Justice of the European Union - curia

7. Information for EU Residents Regarding the U.S. – EU Safe Harbor Program | Federal Trade Commission

8. SEC.gov | Public Alert: Financial Conduct United States of America

9. court of appeal(s) | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

10. supreme court | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Source: Tether Unit Can't Block Crypto Biz's JV Trade Secrets Claim