In order to avoid this costly exercise and avoid the possibility of an unsustainable outcome, please clearly state the jurisdiction you wish to apply to your NDA agreement: any information that the other mobile game developer develops independently of each other (before disclosing the same type of information) cannot be claimed as your proprietary information and therefore cannot be part of the NDA agreement. A mutual NDA is established to protect the confidentiality of disclosures by both parties, but if only one party intends to disclose, only one unilateral NDA is normally established. Confidential information already known or made public by the Receiving Party shall no longer be considered confidential and you may not require the confidentiality of the Receiving Party if such disclosure has occurred without breach or fault on the part of the Receiving Party. It is useful to provide a clause indicating the purpose of your NDA agreement, as this helps to clarify the direction of the agreement. An agreement of indefinite duration remains valid as long as the information is considered confidential, while an NDA agreement expires with a limited duration once the duration is reached. Courts in different jurisdictions consider acceptance of agreements and clauses of the NDA of indefinite duration to be different, but as a general rule, courts are more inclined to accept agreements and clauses of indefinite duration when the information to be protected is a trade secret. Even if the scope of the NDA agreement was reasonable, the agreement can still be deleted if the confidentiality period is too long. An NDA may also be known by other names, such as the confidentiality, non-use, or trade secret agreement. However, if you are covered by a jurisdiction that generally does not accept open-ended NDA agreements, it may be better to have two different clauses to cover the two separate disclosure periods.
If your agreement is covered by a jurisdiction that accepts indefinite NDAS, you can design your agreement without an expiration date. Like what. in Lasership, Inc. v. Watson, the Virginia court ruled that the NDA agreement was not enforceable because the confidentiality requirement was too high and the terms of the agreement should also apply indefinitely. . . .