Data, Secrets & AI: The New Frontier - Future IP Conversation with Barry Connolly

In today’s fast-moving digital economy, protecting innovation while enabling growth is one of the greatest challenges facing businesses. Intellectual property sits at the heart of this challenge - and leaders are tasked with developing strategies that not only safeguard assets but also unlock commercial value.

We are pleased to feature Barry Connolly, Head of Legal and Commercial at Fujitsu Ireland, whose expertise spans technology transactions, intellectual property, and commercial strategy. At Fujitsu, Barry advises on a wide range of IP matters linked to digital innovation and transformation services. His career also includes key experience with Three, where he guided branding and sponsorship activities, and he currently shares his expertise as a lecturer on IP and technology transactions with the Law Society of Ireland.

At Future IP Europe, Barry will speak on Panel 2 (Day 2): Trade Secrets and Data-Driven IP – Keeping Innovation Hidden but Protected. He will bring his perspective on how businesses can best protect sensitive knowledge, avoid common pitfalls, and adapt to new challenges in an era shaped by AI, trade secrets, and global IP regulation.

---

What are the biggest changes you’ve seen in data protection law over the past five years? How have these changes impacted the way you protect data and trade secrets internally?

One of the areas that I have seen develop is how data protection law, and the greater enforcement of data subject rights, is having an ever-increasing impact on other areas of business. The interplay between data protection and trade secrets (or any confidential information) is an issue that has come up more and more over the last few years. You continue to have your classic issues when you are reviewing confidential information in the context of a data subject access request. More recently, we are seeing issues in relation to other data subject rights. With AI products and greater automated decision making, businesses need to consider how they ensure compliance with subject access rights (e.g. providing “meaningful information about the logic involved” in such automated decision-making). This is something that we continue to look at when we are developing new products for customers. And remember, this is just under GDPR; the EU AI Act will also need to be considered, and it too will have its own impact on trade secret protection.

What lessons have been learned from high-profile cybersecurity breaches in recent years?

One major lesson that I have learned is that even though you are not directly impacted by these cybersecurity breaches, you may be affected in a number of other ways. For many of our customers in the tech industry, they will be following these breaches closely, and they will often reach out and ask what would happen in their own business, should they suffer a similar breach? How are you, as a Supplier, protecting our data and assets? We need to be in a position where we can respond by demonstrating our own compliance practices to date, but also evolve those practices to take into account new threats. From my perspective in Legal, that will include working with the business on the technological and organisational security measures, which should continue to evolve, in response to new threats.

In your view, where do trade secrets fit within a company’s overall IP strategy?

I believe there are still significant differences from business to business (and even within different departments of a business) on how trade secrets fit into the overall IP strategy. This will of course depend on the types of IP used in the business.  However, I still see examples where people fail to consider the benefits of good trade secret protection practices. Instead, some will go straight to considering the patent application and will lose all interest in IP strategy if a patent filing looks to be unviable.

How has remote work changed the risk profile for trade secrets and confidential know-how?

In my view, the underlying risk (and the potential impact) is still there, however the probability of the risk occurring has significantly increased. In relation to trade secrets in particular, there may need to be more training on how these are protected. With the Trade Secrets Directive, we can now point to the requirement of taking “reasonable steps” to keep the information secret. When a development team is working on a new product remotely, I can now ask what are the specific steps we are taking in light of that working practice? Where previously, white-boards would be scrubbed clean at the end of their session, what measures are we taking now?

Looking ahead, what legal skills will be most critical for in-house teams working on technology and IP issues?

I think this will very much vary by sector and technology. One major issue will be for any in-house teams advising on AI. For example, under the EU AI Act, since February 2025, staff involved in the operation or use of AI systems are required to have a sufficient level of AI literacy. This includes: understanding the technical context and intended use of AI systems; awareness of risks to affected individuals or groups; and tailored training based on staff roles and expertise. An inhouse legal team advising on AI technologies needs to have this awareness. This is a particular area that will be critical over the coming months and years.

---

Barry’s insights highlight that protecting innovation in today’s digital landscape requires more than traditional approaches. With increasing pressure from data protection laws, cybersecurity risks, and the rise of AI regulation, businesses must rethink how they safeguard trade secrets and sensitive know-how.

His panel, “Trade Secrets and Data-Driven IP – Keeping Innovation Hidden but Protected”, will explore practical steps companies can take to strengthen their IP strategies while adapting to new challenges.

Don’t miss the opportunity to learn from Barry and other leading voices at Future IP Europe.

Secure your place today and join the conversation on protecting innovation in a data-driven world.