Theft of trade secrets: what the Ferrovial vs. Acciona case teaches us
In the knowledge economy, intangible assets are power. Companies compete not only for markets but also for talent, data, and processes that constitute their competitive advantage. And when that talent leaves, what happens to the secrets they hold?
The recent litigation between Ferrovial SE and Acciona SA in the United States is a paradigmatic example. Ferrovial accuses Acciona of theft of trade secrets and industrial espionage following the departure of several executives. The case was filed on February 14, 2025, before the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, presided over by Judge Leigh Martin May. According to the complaint, a former project design manager in Georgia downloaded more than 100,000 confidential documents before joining Acciona. The files included engineering blueprints, construction and bidding strategies, management plans, risk summaries, and pricing.
Ferrovial is seeking injunctions to prohibit the use of the misappropriated information, immediate return, and exemplary damages. Acciona denies having solicited or used said information and claims the lawsuit is unfounded. The competitive context adds tension: both companies are competing for multimillion-dollar contracts in key infrastructures such as the I-285 highway in Atlanta.
This conflict is not isolated. According to the 2023 report from the European Union Intellectual Property Office (Euipo), which evaluates five years of implementation of Directive (EU) 2016/943 on business secrets, 695 judicial proceedings were recorded in the EU from January 2017 to October 2022. 89% were civil, and nearly half (46%) reached appeals. The most affected sectors: technology, pharmaceuticals, and finance. The directive has harmonized the definition and protection mechanisms, but challenges persist: evidential difficulties, confidentiality in proceedings, and barriers for SMEs.
Why does this matter? Because business secrets are at the heart of innovation. In strategic sectors, they can represent up to 80% of a company's intangible value. Unlike patents, they do not expire or get published. Their protection does not rely on registrations but on trust. Shielding the invisible – what cannot be seen or touched, but underpins the business model – requires more than just clauses: culture, vision, and coherence. Here, law meets management, and vulnerability is not in the system but in people.
The protection of secrets is not just a legal matter; it is a cultural issue. Companies must integrate confidentiality into their DNA, not limit themselves to contractual clauses. Clear protocols, training, and coordination among HR, legal, and compliance are essential. But it is not enough to shield. It is necessary to know how to react. In a hyperconnected world, an information leak can turn into a reputational crisis within hours.
The public narrative must protect reputation without compromising legal strategy. Common errors: denying evidence, improvisation, or underestimating the impact on social media. Internal communication is also critical: employees are ambassadors, but also risk vectors.
And when everything fails, litigation arrives. Proving the existence of the secret and its misuse remains the great challenge. Evidence is key; it is necessary to explain why the information constitutes a secret, the effectiveness of protection measures, and the diligence of the company in its defense.
The law has advanced, but judicial practice still faces obstacles. What can we learn? Three ideas: strategic prevention, comprehensive crisis management, and prepared litigation.
The loss of talent is not just a human resources problem; it is a legal and reputational risk that can cost millions. Shielding the intangible requires vision, investment, and collaboration across areas. Because secrets are not just stolen in movies: they are lost in offices, servers, and conversations, and recovering them can be more expensive than protecting them.
See the full article published in Cinco Días here.
