It is good practice to draw the recipient`s attention to important points of the agreement to ensure that they understand the obligations in the confidentiality agreement they will sign. Third, as a general rule, the derogation from know-how is not expressed as a restriction on disclosure that is not contrary to a contractual obligation. That`s strange. And I didn`t invent my version: you can find comparable examples without looking too hard. For example, in the following tweet from @amk351, the exceptions mainly follow mine. The exception already known applies only to information held by the recipient when receiving confidential information. On the other hand, the other exceptions focus on the nature of the information and apply both before and after receiving the information concerned by the recipients. It seems that the exception already known is an anomaly, and an anomaly poorly thought out. Exceptions to sections 2.3 and 2.4 are common and probably self-explained. In accordance with Section 2.3, the information itself is excluded from the scope of the agreement, while Section 2.4 requires an additional obligation of publicity, with the appropriate right to act. Section 2.5 narrows the scope of the exemption in point 2.3 bis). In many contexts, section 2.5 is not necessary. It protects inventions, analyses, ideas and know-how that, in a somewhat unorthodox way, combine two things, facts or public events (non-confidential).
The information to be understood under secrecy is then limited to the simple combination of these things, facts or events. NDAs are often removed from the obligation not to disclose confidential information “as required by law.” It is important to understand what is carved into this exception so that you know when you can disclose information that the other party calls confidential and when the other party may disclose information that you call confidential. An obvious exception is when a court orders the disclosure of the information. But you should also be aware of an increasing number of exceptions to “whistleblowing,” including the following exceptions: Below are some of the most common exceptions to the confidentiality requirement in most agreements. These exceptions are generally used in such a way that the confidentiality agreement appears appropriate. A well-developed confidentiality clause also deals with exceptions, although they may be considered reasons or can be used to defend against a violation: confidentiality agreements (“NOAs”) are of two types: a mutual agreement or a unilateral agreement. The reciprocal agreement is reached when both parties can share confidential information, while in a unilateral agreement, only one of the parties makes the disclosure.  It is the obligation for the party to disclose to ensure that the recipient of confidential information is informed that the disclosure of the information does not give them the right, property or license to obtain confidential information, but that it has access to the information for the purpose of pre-use of the contract. Therefore, the dividing party must bear in mind that, in the development of the NDA, the scope of confidential information must be broad enough to ensure better protection of current or future business secrets, allowing the dividing party to file a complaint for any breach.
Many inventors and companies devote a great deal of time and resources to developing new products or building customer bases. It is not surprising and certainly justified that great attention is being paid to ensure that this proprietary information does not fall into the wrong hands.