Trade Secret Law
	Any establishment can protect its confidential information through non-compete non-disclosure contracts with its employees. In the absence of formal protection, a third party is not prevented from independently duplicating and using the secret information once it is discovered. The law of protection of confidential information allows a perpetual monopoly in secret information. Generally the following factors are to be considered in determining whether a plaintiff possessed a trade secret: the extent to which the information is known outside to [plaintiff’s] business; the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in [plaintiff’s] business; the extent of measures taken by [plaintiff] to guard the secrecy of the information; the value of the information to the [plaintiff] and to his competitors; the amount of effort or money expended by [plaintiff] in developing the information; [and] the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others. In order to succeed in a trade secret infringement suit, a trade secret owner (Plaintiff) must show: that the information alleged to be confidential provides a competitive advantage, that the information really is maintained in secrecy, that the information was improperly acquired by the defendant (if the defendant is accused of making commercial use of the secret), or that the information was improperly disclosed by the defendant (if the defendant is accused of leaking the information).
	Intellectual Property Rights Books On Trade Secrets Law Case Law The "Inevitable Disclosure" Doctrine Trade secret law has gained importance and recognition only recently with the intensification of competition in business activity. Trade secret is not registered with the government as is done in the case of intellectual properties such as patents, copyrights and trademarks. The only way to protect trade secret is to keep the information confidential. Trade secret protection lasts for as long as the trade secret is kept confidential. Trade secret protection ends the moment a trade secret is made available to the public. What is a trade secret? Trade secrets may consist of any formula, physical device, idea, pattern, process or compilation of information. Trade secret provides the owner of the information with a competitive advantage in a competitive market. Trade secret is protected in such a way that competitors gain knowledge of it only through acquisition or theft. Potential trade secrets are a secret recipe or a formula for a drink, survey methods used by professional pollsters, a new invention for which a patent application has not yet been filed, marketing strategies, manufacturing techniques and computer algorithms. How to keep and protect trade secrets? Trade secrets are valuable intellectual property that cannot be protected by intellectual property laws such as patents, copyrights and trademarks laws. So, the best way to keep and protect trade secrets is: By keeping a new idea or business concept secret in order to enjoy a competitive advantage as a early mover. By keeping competitors from learning that a product or service is under development and from discovering its functional or technical attributes. By protecting valuable business information such as marketing plans, cost and price information and customer lists. By protecting both negative and positive information learned during the course of research and development. By protecting any other information that has some value and is not generally known by your competitors.

What are trade secret ownership rights?
A company owning tradesecrets can prevent any employee who routinely comes into contact with the employer's trade secrets as part of the employee's job, who is automatically bound by a duty of confidentiality, not to disclose or use trade secret information, from copying, using and benefiting from its trade secrets or disclosing them to others without permission.
A company owning tradesecrets can prevent those who acquire a trade secret through improper means such as theft, industrial espionage or bribery, from copying, using and benefiting from its trade secrets or disclosing them to others without permission.
A company owning tradesecrets can prevent those who knowingly obtain trade secrets from people who have no right to disclose them, from copying, using and benefiting from its trade secrets or disclosing them to others without permission.
A company owning tradesecrets can prevent those who learn about a trade secret by accident or mistake, but had reason to know that the information was a protected trade secret, from copying, using and benefiting from its trade secrets or disclosing them to others without permission.
A company owning tradesecrets can prevent those who sign nondisclosure agreements ("confidentiality agreements") from copying, using and benefiting from its trade secrets or disclosing them to others without permission.

Employees are normally bound by an implied duty not to disclose sensitive information. Even then, nondisclosure agreements should preferably be signed by all employees who come into contact with a company's trade secrets, including high-level employees and company presidents. Nondisclosure agreements make it clear to the employee that the company's trade secrets must be kept confidential. A company's lenders, investors and potential investors may also insist that employees sign nondisclosure agreements.

People who discover the tradesecret independently, without using illegal means or violating agreements or state laws cannot be stopped from using information protected under trade secret law.. It is not a violation of trade secret law to "reverse engineer" any lawfully obtained product and determine its trade secret.
Product X is comprised of a trade secret protected formula. Y reverse engineers the Product X and recreates the formula. Y can legally use this information to make and sell his own Product X.

How can trade secrets be protected?
There must be a clear demonstrated intention to keep any valuable business information a trade secret by marking documents containing trade secrets "Confidential," maintaining computer security and limiting access to secrets.
Trade secrets are best protected through the use of nondisclosure agreements. Courts have repeatedly reiterated that the use of nondisclosure agreements is the best demonstrated way to maintain the secrecy of confidential information.
Lack of nondisclosure agreements gives rise to doubts about genuine intention to keep trade secrets protected.
Enforcing trade secret rights if someone steals or improperly discloses confidential information.
Every state has enacted a law prohibiting theft or disclosure of trade secrets. Most of these laws are derived from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA).
A trade secret owner can enforce rights against someone who steals confidential information by asking a court to issue an injunction preventing further disclosure. If Company X learns that an employee has emailed trade secrets to Company Y, Company X can obtain a court order preventing use of the secrets by Company Y. A trade secret owner can also collect damages for any economic injury suffered as a result of the trade secret's improper acquisition and use.

Examples of trade secret infringement that can lead to trade secret lawsuits:

• X, a former employee of Y, discloses Y's trade secrets to a new employer.
• X hacks into the network for a company and downloads information. X sells the information to a third party which a rival company.
• X works as an independent contractor for Y. X signed a nondisclosure agreement with Y, but later discloses Y's secrets to a rival.

The "Inevitable Disclosure" Doctrine
A company may prevent a former employee from working for a competitor if the company can demonstrate that employment with the competitor will inevitably lead to disclosure of trade secrets.

In PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995), there is discussion of when disclosure of trade secrets is “inevitable.”
The court identified several factors to be weighed in determining whether disclosure of trade secrets in “inevitable” including;
(1) Is the new employer a competitor? (2) What is the scope of the defendant’s new job? (3) Has the employee been less than candid about his new position? (4) Has the plaintiff clearly identified the trade secrets that are at risk? (5) Has actual trade secret misappropriation already occurred? (6) Did the employee sign a nondisclosure and/or non-competition agreement? (7) Does the new employer have a policy against use of others’ trade secrets? (8) Is it possible to “sanitize” the employee’s new position?”

PepsiCo (1995 case) successfully argued that a former executive could not work as Chief Executive Officer of a competitor Gatorade and Snapple because the executive will inevitably rely on PepsiCo's trade secrets and in the process give the competitor an unfair advantage over PepsiCo.

The inevitable disclosure doctrine has been rejected by many States because it challenges an employee's basic freedom to switch employers. A court may refuse to apply the inevitable disclosure doctrine unless

• additional bad faith is shown
• underhanded dealing is proved, or
• a competitor who does not have comparable technology has employed the worker.

Does the stealing of trade secrets constitute a crime?
Intentional theft of trade secrets can constitute a crime under both federal and state laws. The most significant federal law dealing with trade secret theft is the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA) (18 U.S.C., Sections 1831 to 1839). The EEA gives the U.S. Attorney General sweeping powers to prosecute any person or company involved in trade secret misappropriation and punishes intentional stealing, copying or receiving of trade secrets. Individuals may be fined up to $500,000 and corporations up to $5 million. A violator may also be sent to prison for up to ten years. All property used and proceeds derived from the theft can be seized and sold by the government.
The EEA applies not only to thefts that occur within the United States, but also to thefts outside the U.S. if the thief is a U.S. citizen or corporation, or if any act in furtherance of the offense occurred in the U.S. If the theft is performed on behalf of a foreign government or agent, the corporate fines can double and jail time may increase to 15 years.
Trade secret infringement a crime in California. It is a crime to acquire, disclose or use trade secrets without authorization. Violators may be fined up to $5,000, sentenced to up to one year in jail, or both. (Cal. Penal Code Section 499c.)

Unless otherwise stated, the statute in the United States of America reads as follows:
“Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, drawing, cost data or customer list that:
(1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and
(2) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
"Misappropriation" of trade secrets is defined as the:
(1) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or
(2) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who
(A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or
(B) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was (i) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; (ii) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use, or (iii) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(C) before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.

Books On Trade Secrets Law:

Navigant Consulting Inc. v. Wilkinson
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
Action brought against two of plaintiff-consulting company's former employees alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Judgment against defendants is affirmed.

San Jose Constr., Inc. v. S.B.C.C., Inc.
California Appellate Districts
Action by plaintiff-construction company against its former employee and his new employer, summary judgment for the new employer is reversed. There were triable issues of fact with regard to causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition.

Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Sys. Corp.
California Appellate Districts
Dispute with former employee over computer code and alleged trade secrets, judgment for defendants is affirmed as plaintiff failed to establish that the code constituted a trade secret.

Incase Inc. v. Timex Corp.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals
Claims of misappropriation of trade secret, unfair trade practices, breach of contract, and implied contract: Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on the trade secret claim is affirmed where there was no evidence to support plaintiff's argument that it took reasonable steps to preserve the secrecy of the design in question.

Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roth
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets in the form of client lists. Preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed in part where the information in plaintiff's client database was a trade secret entitling plaintiff to an injunction.

Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu
California Appellate Districts
Order temporarily enjoining defendants from engaging in certain activities found by the trial court to constitute, among other things, tortious disloyalty to, and interference with the business of plaintiffs is affirmed.

Synergetics, Inc. v. Hurst
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
Action by a company against former employees for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets.

People v. Laiwala
California Appellate Districts
Defendant established, and the prosecutor failed to refute, that there is no reasonable cause to support a finding that the information at issue was a trade secret.

People v. Laiwala
California Appellate Districts
The record contains insufficient evidence that the "master key" associated with a DVD copy protection scheme had "independent economic value." Thus it was not shown to qualify as a trade secret under Penal Code section 499c.

BondPro Corp. v. Siemens Power Generation, Inc.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Judgment as a matter of law for defendant in a trade secrets suit involving a manufacturing technique is affirmed where the disputed invention did not meet the criteria for a trade secret.

Hicklin Eng LC v. Bartell, R.J.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Summary judgment for the plaintiff in a trade secret case is reversed after a finding that a reasonable jury could have determined that the defendant, an independent contractor, knew that the plaintiff company treated at least some of the data it provided him as trade secrets.

US v. Ye
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a discovery order involving pretrial depositions of government witnesses in a prosecution for possession of stolen trade secrets is granted where the Bauman factors weighed strongly in favor of granting such relief. Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977).

Hacny Transp. v. Chu
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Claims for misappropriation of trade secrets are foreclosed by Section 8(a) of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act only when they rest on the conduct that is said to have misappropriated the secrets.

Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Super. Ct. of Santa Barbara
California Appellate Districts
Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210, which provides that discovery relating to a trade secret may not commence until the trade secret is identified with reasonable particularity, extends to any cause of action which relates to the trade secret.

BP Chem. v. Jiangsu SOPO Corp.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
Suit alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, plaintiff has marshalled sufficient facts in support of its pleadings to survive defendant's factual jurisdictional challenge under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

READYLINK HEALTHCARE v. COTTON
California Appellate Districts
Trial court's enforcement of plaintiff-employer's noncompetition agreement is affirmed where there is sufficient evidence establishing that defendant-employee intended to use protectable trade secret information stolen from plaintiff.

MILLENNIUM CORP. SOLUTIONS v. PECKINPAUGH
California Appellate Districts
Suit concerning the misappropriation of trade secrets, the grant of a preliminary injunction against plaintiff-brokerage firm is affirmed over its challenge that it was deprived of its right to a fair hearing.

WYETH v. NATURAL BIOLOGICS, INC.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
District court did not err in finding defendant misappropriated plaintiff's trade secret for producing bulk natural conjugated estrogens used in the development of Premarin.

PEAT v. VANGUARD RESEARCH
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Trade secrets case. Jury verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff is reversed because the erroneous and prejudicial admission of a summary exhibit constituted reversible error.

CHILDREN'S BROADCASTING CORP. v. THE WALT DISNEY CO.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
On retrial for damages, evidence supported the jury verdict on damages due to misappropriation of a trade secret.

RHONE-POULENC AGRO, S.A. v. DEKALB GENETICS CORP.
U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals
On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the fraudulent inducement, trade secret misappropriation, and patent infringement jury verdicts in favor of plaintiff, as well as the award of punitive damages and several related post-trial rulings made by the district court, are affirmed.

DVD COPY CONTROL ASS'N, INC. v. BUNNER
Supreme Court of California
A preliminary injunction prohibiting a web site operator from disclosing trade secrets violates neither the First Amendment nor the California Constitution, assuming the trial court properly issued the injunction under California's trade secret law.

LEARNING CURVE TOYS, INC. v. PLAYWOOD TOYS, INC.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Plaintiff had a protectable trade secret in a concept for a noise-producing toy railroad track under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act; a rational jury could conclude that exemplary damages were justified.

HARVEY BARNETT, INC. v. SHIDLER
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
Summary judgment was not appropriate on whether an "Infant Swimming Program," viewed comprehensively, was a trade secret under Colorado law; district court erred in determining that a confidentiality provision in a license agreement was a disguised restrictive covenant.

SARGENT FLETCHER, INC. v. ABLE CORP.
California Appellate Districts
Action by a manufacturer against a subcontractor for misappropriation of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the trial court correctly refused the manufacturer's proposed instruction to place the burden of proof on defendant.

IN RE BASS
Supreme Court of Texas
Geological seismic data are trade secrets, and non-participating mineral royalty interest owners failed to establish the existence of a claim against the mineral estate owner, justifying discovery of the trade secret data.

GUY CARPENTER & CO., INC. v. PROVENZALE
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
A customer list was not a trade secret where it was readily ascertainable.

BOURNS, INC. v. RAYCHEM CORP.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Jury instructions as a whole did not allow the jury to find actual misappropriation based on inevitable disclosure alone, thus findings of misappropriation and associated damages are affirmed.

IN RE: BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC.
Supreme Court of Texas
Plaintiffs in defective tire litigation are not entitled to discovery of defendant's "skim stock" formulas, which are trade secrets, as mere possibility of unfairness is not enough to warrant disclosure of the information.

CHEMETALL GMBH v. ZR ENERGY, INC.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Illinois law. The question whether plaintiff acquired the right to enforce an employee's duty of confidentiality could not be decided on the contracts alone, and the parties were entitled to present evidence on the issue at trial.

MOORE v. KULICKE & SOFFA INDUS., INC.
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
Pennsylvania trade secret law, only the burden of production is shifted when defendant raises independent development, and the ultimate burden remains on plaintiff to prove that defendant did not arrive at a technique similar to the trade secret through its own independent development.

LUIGINO'S, INC. v. PETERSON
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
Summary judgment was proper in breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, corporate usurpation, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of confidentiality agreement claims.

PENALTY KICK MGMT. LTD. v. COCA-COLA CO.
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of defendant's actual disclosure or unauthorized use of plaintiff's trade secrets under the Georgia Trade Secrets Act (GTSA).

SAVOR, INC. v. FMR CORP.
Supreme Court of Delaware
complaint seeking relief from misappropriation of trade secrets met the minimal standards governing notice pleading, and thus adequately stated a claim.

PHILIP MORRIS, INC. v. REILLY
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals
A Massachusetts law, requiring tobacco companies to submit to the state the ingredient lists for certain tobacco products sold in the state, is an unconstitutional taking of property (trade secrets) in violation of due process.

CADENCE DESIGN SYS., INC. v. AVANT! CORP.
Supreme Court of California
Trade secret infringement action under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA). Continued improper use or disclosure of a trade secret after defendant's initial misappropriation is viewed as part of a single claim of "continuing misappropriation" accruing at the time of the initial misappropriation.

WESTERN FORMS, INC. v. PICKELL
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
District court did not err in finding defendant did not breach confidentiality or use trade secrets, as the materials plaintiff seeks to protect are not protectable.

FOUR PILLARS ENTER. CO. v. AVERY DENNISON CORP.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding that a discovery order for trade secret material, under 28 U.S.C. section 1782, would improperly frustrate a protective order issued by an Ohio court in a separate action between the same parties.

SCHLAGE LOCK CO. V. WHYTE
California Appellate Districts
Inevitable disclosure doctrine, permitting a trade secret owner to prevent a former employee from working for a competitor, is contrary to California law and policy because it creates an after-the-fact covenant not to compete restricting employee mobility.

BBA NONWOVENS SIMPSONVILLE, INC. v. SUPERIOR NONWOVENS, LLC
U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals
Claimed trade secret technology satisfied each of the statutory requirements for existence of a trade secret under South Carolina law, and the record supported a finding of willful misappropriation.

HERRICK v. GARVEY
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
The "trade secret" exemption, to the Freedom of Information Act's general requirement that the federal government release information to the public, will bar a request to the FAA for plans and specifications regarding an antique aircraft.

BAXTER INT'L, INC. v. ABBOTT LAB.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
A renewed motion to place documents under seal, based on a claim of commercially sensitive information, is denied where it does not analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing legal citations and reasons in support.

STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS GROUP, INC. v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CO.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
Questions that a pharmaceutical company used in research surveys were not trade secrets, because they were readily ascertainable in public sources, and its use of three of the questions in a follow-up survey did not breach an agreement with a market research company.

LUCINI ITALIA CO. v. GRAPPOLINI
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Misappropriation of gourmet food company's trade secrets.

LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. v. HICKORY SPRINGS MFG. CO.
U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals
Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and trade secret misappropriation.

IDX SYS. CORP. v. EPIC SYS. CORP.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Where a software manufacturer failed to precisely define its trade secret, summary judgment on its claim against former employees, alleging trade secret theft, was proper; however, the dismissal of its claims of tortious inducement of former customers to switch software providers was reversed.

US v. YANG
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
Where the defendants believed the information they conspired and attempted to steal was a trade secret, the fact that the information was not an actual trade secret was irrelevant, as the defense of impossibility is unavailable to defendants charged under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. sections 1832(a)(4) and (5).

IN RE: PROVIDIAN CREDIT CARD CASES
California Appellate Districts
Rules 243.1 and 243.2 of the California Rules of Court vest a trial court with a considerable amount of discretion in deciding whether to seal or unseal a judicial record and, in light of the strong presumption in favor of public access, unsealing records containing alleged trade secrets was not an abuse of discretion.

DVD COPY CONTROL ASS'N v. BUNNER
California Appellate Districts
A computer source code which describes an alternative method of decrypting copy protection on DVD's is pure "speech" protected by the First Amendment.

MINNESOTA MINING & MFG. CO. v. PRIBYL
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Evidence that plaintiff took six years to develop its process, but that the company founded by plaintiff's employees developed a similar process almost immediately, is sufficient for a jury inference that defendants misappropriated plaintiff's trade secrets.

CADENCE DESIGN SYS., INC. v. AVANT! CORP.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
California Supreme Court certified to determine whether, under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, an infringment arises only upon the initial misappropriation of the trade secret or with each subsequent misuse of the trade secret.

DTM RESEARCH, L.L.C. v. AT&T CORP.
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
A defendant in a trade secrets case is not entitled to summary judgment on the ground that a protective order, based on the governments' assertion of a "state secrets" privilege, precluded it from defending the case effectively.

UROPLASTY, INC v. ADVANCED UROSCIENCE, INC.,
U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals
Because plaintiff's trade secrets misappropriation action does not implicate federal patent law, removal from state court was improper, and the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter summary judgment for defendant.

Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP - 08/30/06 - California Appellate Districts.
Noncompetition agreement prohibiting employee from performing services for former clients is invalid under Business and Professions Code section 16000 unless it falls within statutory or "trade secret" exceptions to statute.

Imaging Bus. Machs., LLC v. BancTec, Inc. - 08/10/06 - Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets. - U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Finding on the preliminary injunction motion that plaintiff lacked a trade secret was not the result of resolving all disputes and drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to plaintiff.

O'Grady v. Santa Clara Superior Ct. (Apple Computer, Inc.) - 05/26/06 - California Appellate Districts.
Cyberspace Law, Trade Secrets.
Federal Stored Communications Act, California reporter's shield, conditional constitutional privilege against compulsory disclosure of confidential sources.

Doeblers' Pennsylvania Hybrids, Inc. v. Doebler - 03/23/06 - Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets, Trademark - U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Trademark and trade secret dispute between corn-seed businesses owned by relatives of the same founder is reversed where plaintiff did not meet its burden of showing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

APG, Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp. - 02/08/06 - Retail, Trade Secrets - U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.
Summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law in favor of defendant vacated in part where the facts left open the possibility of liability on a theory of unjust enrichment.

Will v. Hallock - 01/18/06 - Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets - U.S. Supreme Court.

Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. New Century Mortgage Corp. - 01/11/06 - Trade Secrets, Copyright, Cyberspace Law, Ethics & Professional Responsibility. - U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

ConFold Pac., Inc. v. Polaris Indus., Inc. - 01/10/06 - Intellectual Property, Manufacturing, Trade Secrets. - U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
suit for breach of contract and unjust enrichment involving a proposal containing a shipping container design. Contract at issue did not bind defendant from revealing to a third party plaintiff's proposed container design.

Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Group, Inc. - 12/21/05 - Intellectual Property, Remedies, Trade Secrets, Cyberspace Law, Evidence - California Appellate Districts.
Misappropriation of plaintiff's trade secrets regarding certain technology designed by plaintiff. There was sufficient evidence of damages for misappropriation as to each defendant to survive a motion for nonsuit.

Microstrategy Inc. v. Bus. Objects - 11/17/05 - Intellectual Property, Patent, Remedies, Trade Secrets. - U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals.
District court erred in determining that Virginia law would not acknowledge plaintiff's contractual non-solicitation clause.

Manuel v. Convergys Corp. - 11/15/05 - Employment Law, Trade Secrets - U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Summary: Summary judgment for plaintiff in a contract action is affirmed. Noncompetition agreement was void and unenforceable under Georgia law

P.C. Yonkers, Inc. v. Celebrations - 11/07/05 - Retail, Trade Secrets, White Collar Crime - U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.
Plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient proof that defendants-former employees violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

Mid-Michigan Computer Sys. v. Marc Glassman, Inc. - 07/20/05 - Trade Secrets - U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

State Farm MUT. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Garamendi - 04/26/04 - Insurance Law, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets - Supreme Court of California
Exemption from disclosure of information protected by the trade secret privilege. California Code of Regulations permitting public inspection of statements that insurers are required to file, is valid; the public disclosure provision of Insurance Code section 1861.07 does not incorporate the exemption from disclosure found in Government Code section 6254(k), and thus does not exempt from disclosure information protected by the trade secret privilege.

Phillips v. AWH Corp. - 04/08/04 - Patent, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets - U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals
Trade secret misappropriation claim was correctly dismissed as time-barred.

Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - 04/08/04 - Patent, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets - California Appellate Districts
Disclosure of a transcript of a conversation among defendant's officers and lawyers that was inadvertently left on plaintiff's voicemail system. Defendant waived its attorney-client privilege by disclosing the information within the meaning of section 912(a).

Vliw Tech., LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co. - 12/19/03 - Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets - Supreme Court of Delaware.
Contract provisions regarding confidentiality and restricting the use of the licensed technology were sufficiently ambiguous to survive dismissal.

Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle - - 08/18/03 - Patent, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets - U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Plaintiff established a prima facie case that personal jurisdiction over defendants would be proper and comports with due process.
PAVLOVICH v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY ( DVD COPY CONTROL ASS'N, INC.)
- 11/25/02 - Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets - Supreme Court of California.
Court exercising personal jurisdiction over a defendant, based on a posting on an Internet Web site, was improper because defendant's knowledge that his conduct may harm industries centered in California did not, by itself, establish express aiming.

STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. v. LOW - 10/17/01 - Insurance Law, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets - California Appellate Districts.
California Code of Regulations, title 10, section 2646.6(c) and Insurance Code section 1861.07 permit public disclosure of Community Service Statements that insurance companies file under Proposition 103 even if they contain trade secrets.

Nondisclosure Agreements: Protect Your Trade Secrets and More Protecting Trade Secrets Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act Trade Secrets: Protecting Your Confidential Business Information The Uniform Trade Secrets Act