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.

Rajrathnam V P, Attorney and IPR Consultant

Books On Trade Secrets Law

Trade Secrets Case Law

The "Inevitable Disclosure" Doctrine

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).
Protecting Trade Secrets.jpg (16277 bytes)

 

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:

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act : An article from: JOM [HTML] (Digital) January 31, 2006
by David V Radack
Once a trade secret misappropriation is found, the UTSA provides remedies for the aggrieved party. Traditional remedies, such as money damages and injunctions, are provided under the UTSA. Money damages can take the form of the defendant's unjust enrichment or the injured party's loss, in terms of lost profits. The UTSA also provides for a reasonable royalty as an alternate measure of damages.
This digital document is an article from JOM, most recently published by ProQuest Information and Learning on January 31, 2006. The length of the article is 902 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Nondisclosure Agreements.jpg (12811 bytes)

Nondisclosure Agreements: Protect Your Trade Secrets and More (Paperback)
by Richard Stim, Stephen Fishman - Bk&CD-Rom edition (September 1, 2001)
Attorneys Stim (License Your Invention) and Fishman (Working for Yourself) target small-business managers with this comprehensive explanation of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs). The book covers the use of the agreements to prevent theft of business secrets by employees and competitors, beginning with a discussion of what trade secrets are and which kind can be protected by NDAs and followed by a review of the essential elements of a basic nondisclosure form. There is a chapter on agreements for specific situations in which secrets might be divulged, such as software beta tests, employment interviews, business visits, and sharing customer lists. Readers will learn what the options are if an agreement is violated and how to find and work with an attorney to enforce an NDA. The book includes a glossary, a list of state signatories to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and plenty of sample forms for NDAs printed in the text and on an accompanying CD-ROM. Highly recommended for business collections. Joan Pedzich, Harris Beach, Rochester, NY
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Inventors, business people, programmers and other professionals often possess confidential information that gives them an advantage in their field. The sad reality, however, is that a secret can be leaked, obliterating any benefit it provided.
Protect yourself and your business. Armed with Nondisclosure Agreements, you have the step-by-step instructions and legal forms you need to safeguard your trade secrets, even if they reach the wrong hands.
Written by attorneys who specialize in intellectual property, this book guides you through the development of a nondisclosure agreement, explaining the "fine print" so that you can keep your information confidential. Nondisclosure agreements can be tailored for every type of situation, including:
* employers maintaining employee secrecy
* inventors keeping their gadgets under wraps
* businesses licensing their secret technology
* programmers beta-testing their software
* marketers protecting customer lists
* and many more
The book provides a thorough, easy-to-follow analysis of trade secret law and nondisclosure agreements, including an explanation of how trade secrets are created and who owns them. Includes over 15 forms as tear-outs and on CD-ROM.

Protecting Trade Secrets.jpg (16277 bytes)

Protecting Trade Secrets Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Hardcover)
by Michael Craig Budden
“...is concice, useful, and well-written primer for the subject of commercial confidential information....Budden's careful and realistic approach has produced a useful, compact guidebook for the on-the-go business executive who must confront the subject of trade secrets, simultaneously Budden's work can well serve the needs of academicians, especially in business schools and law schools....[P]rovides thoughtful and practical advice in the field of information security without excessive legal jargon....[H]eartily recommended for any business leader or academician who must deal with the subject of information security.”–IJCM
Trade secrets are valuable. Executives know that, but do they also know how easily they can be stolen? Marketing expert Michael Budden thinks not. The departure of unhappy employees, sabotage by current employees, or simply the carelessness of managers unmindful of the risks or unaware of the protection available to them can be hazardous to the security of essential corporate information. Now, however, there is the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Prevalent in most states with enactment in others almost certain, the Act offers the protection executives need providing they have taken reasonable steps on their own before seeking redress under its provisions. In this readable text, Budden explains the law, how it works, and what executives must do to avail themselves of it. He includes revealing case studies for futher guidance and to aid executives in their corporate strategic planning. An essential resource for people with management responsibilities in almost all organizations, and a useful quick refresher for their legal advisers.

Protecting Your Confidential Business Information.jpg (16163 bytes)

Trade Secrets: Protecting Your Confidential Business Information (Self-Counsel Business (Paperback)) (Paperback)
by Nishan Swais
- Safeguard your confidential business information - Understand the threat posed by technology - What to do if your secret gets out.
This book was written for the Canadian market; hence, the laws and regulations contained pertain to Canada. It is, however, an excellent beginner's guide for anyone.

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

Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Super. Ct. of Santa Barbara - U.S.Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210.

Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roth - misappropriation of tradesecrets in the form of client lists.

Auto Channel, Inc. v. Speedvision Network, LLC, 144 F. Supp. 2d 784, 788-89 (W.D. Ky. 2001) - allowing a plaintiff to plead common law theories regarding the same information as a trade secret claim "would undermine the uniformity and clarity that motivated the creation and passage of the Uniform Act.".

BBA Nonwovens Simpsonville, Inc. v. Superior Nonwovens, LLC - statutory requirements for existence of a tradesecret under South Carolina law.

BondPro Corp. v. Siemens Power Generation, Inc. - disputed invention did not meet the criteria for a tradesecret.

BP Chem. v. Jiangsu SOPO Corp. - misappropriation of tradesecrets.

Bridgestone/Fireesstone, Inc. - Mere possibility of unfairness is not enough to warrant disclosure of the information.

Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Avant! Corp. - trade secret infringement action under the California Uniform TradeSecrets Act (UTSA).

DVD Copy Control Ass'n., Inc. v. Bunner, 116 Cal. App. 4th 241, 251 (2004) (widespread Internet postings destroyed secrecy).

Empire Steam Laundry v. Lozier, 165 Cal. 95, 96 (1915) - customer list "a trade secret of great value"; this case was also the first to hold that what is now Business & Professions Code section 16600 does not void trade secrecy obligations because "Equity always protects against the unwarranted disclosure and unconscionable use of tradesecrets and confidential business communications."

Four Pillars Enter. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp. - discovery order for tradesecret material.

Gate-Way, Inc. v. Wilson, 94 Cal. App. 2d 706, 714 (1949) (no secret where aspects of plaintiff's process for coating metal were in the public domain).

General Universal Sys. Inc. v. HAL Inc. - claim of trade secret misappropriation against certain defendants was time barred.

GO Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. - alleging trade secret theft and antitrust injuries.

Guy Carpenter & Co., Inc. v. Provenzale - A customer list was not a trade secret where it was readily ascertainable.

Hacny Transp. v. Chu - misappropriation of trade secrets.

Hicklin Eng LC v. Bartell, R.J. - trade secret case.

Incase Inc. v. Timex Corp. - misappropriation of trade secret and unfair trade practices.

Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. Hickory Springs Mfg. Co. - doctrine of equivalents and trade secret misappropriation.

Lucini Italia Co. v. Grappolini - misappropriation of gourmet food company's trade secrets.

Mike's Train House v. Lionel, L.L.C. - misappropriation of trade secrets.

Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Pribyl - company founded by plaintiff's employees developed a similar process immediately. Jury finds infers that defendants misappropriated plaintiff's trade secrets.

Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 407 F.2d 288, 290-91 (9th Cir. 1969) (action over technical information styled as "misappropriation of its confidential business information."

Navigant Consulting Inc. v. Wilkinson - alleging breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets.

People v. Laiwala - no reasonable cause to support a finding that the information at issue was a trade secret.

PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995), there is discussion of when disclosure of trade secrets is “inevitable.”

Readylink Healthcare v. Cotton - plaintiff-employer's noncompetition agreement is affirmed.

Rhone-Poulenc Agro, S.A. v. Dekalb Genetics Corp. - misappropriation of trade secrets.

San Jose Constr., Inc. v. S.B.C.C., Inc. - action for misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition.

Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp. - misappropriation of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Plaintiff's ultimate burden to prove absence of independent derivation.

Schlage Lock Co. V. Whyte - The inevitable disclosure doctrine. Restriction of employee mobility.

SL Montevideo Tech., Inc. v. Eaton Aerospace, LLC - misuse of protected proprietary information

Stratienko v. Cordis Corp. - misappropriation of trade secret.

Strategic Directions Group, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. - Questions that a pharmaceutical company used in research surveys were not trade secrets.

Synergetics, Inc. v. Hurst - misappropriation of trade secrets.

Triple Tee Golf, Inc. v. Nike, Inc. - misappropriation of trade secrets.

Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp., 10 Cal. App. 4th 612, 629 (1992)  - plaintiff's failure to show defendant's commercial use of trade secret was insufficient basis for nonsuit.

Western Forms, Inc. v. Pickell - defendant did not breach confidentiality or use trade secrets, as the materials plaintiff seeks to protect are not protectable.

Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Sys. Corp. - failure to establish that the computer code constituted a trade secret.