Trade Secret Attorney, Non-Compete Agreement Attorney

Trade Secret Attorney Discusses Idea Protection & Secrecy | Technology Trade Secrets

As a technology and trade secret attorney, I get to see evolution of a person's idea from conception to fruition.  Too often, however, clients seek attorney advice on protecting a trade secret only after there is a problem. In many instances, people as so anxious to move their idea forward, they forget that the one key ingredient which makes their intangible idea valuable is protecting the idea, or its incarnation as software, technology or other intellectual property, as a trade secret.  A trade secret lawyer sometimes have to hold you back to make sure your idea is protected from third parties, employees, consultants, independent contractors and customers before letting those folks into the tent. If you fail to protect and maintain the secrecy of your idea, whether software code, technology, formula, process or otherwise, you lose trade secret protection. That means anyone can copy your idea, and no non-compete or trade secret attorney will be able to stop them.

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) §(4) states:

"Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual  or potential, from no 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 (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), §5 also places special requirements on the court to maintain the trade secret during the pendency of the trade secret case litigation:

Preservation of Secrecy -In action under this Act, a court shall preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable means, which may include granting protective orders in connection with discovery proceedings, holding in-camera hearings, sealing the records of the action, and ordering any person involved in the litigation not to disclose an alleged trade secret without prior court approval.

How To Protect a Trade Secret | Advice from an Internet Lawyer

Most companies spend a lot of time and monies to protect their trade secrets. Whether it's the formula for a popular soft drink, the recipe for take out chicken, or the design of the latest software platform, somebody could take the thing that makes your business or process unique and reap the benefits of what you've sown without remuneration to you. Attorney Mark Clark discusses trade secret law and what you can do to protect yourself.

• A trade secret is now defined under the law by statute.

• Most states in the United States have adopted some form of the Uniform Trade Secret Act.

• Trade secrets are defined as a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process that has both independent economic value and is not generally known to or not readily accessible by other persons and is the subject of efforts to maintain its secrecy.

 

Today’s trade secret law program is brought to you by the attorneys at Traverse Legal, PLC, a global law firm specializing in internet law, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, cybersquatting, online defamation, non-compete and trade secret law, and complex litigation. If you have a legal or trade secret protection matter arising on the web, contact one of Traverse Legal’s internet lawyers today. Now here’s your host, Damien Allen.

Damien Allen: Good morning, and welcome to Traverse Legal Radio. My name is Damien Allen, and today joining me on the phone is Mark Clark, attorney at Traverse Legal, PLC. Good morning, Mark, and welcome to the program.

 

Mark Clark: Good morning, Damien. How are you?

Trade Secret Protection | Former Employees Get Sued by Honeywell

Trade Secret Laws Blog: Honeywell Sues Akebono and Two Former Employees for Trade Secrets Theft

On July 24, 2008, Honeywell International sued Akebono Corporation, Akebono Brake Industry Co., Ltd. and Sunil Kesavan and Ximming Shao for misappropriating trade secrets that relate to the making of fiction materials for automotive brake pads.

Honeywell claims that a secret process one of its employees designed for the making of automotive brake pad materials has been maintained as a trade secret from 1996 until the present. Honeywell further claims that Kesavan and Shao, who left employment with Honeywell in 2002 and 1999 respectively, began work with Akebono and used information Honeywell maintained to research and develop, and ultimately received a US patent for, brake systems that utilize Honeywell's confidential and trade secret information.

Under trade secret protection law, Honeywell is now trying to get the genie back in the bottle. Their first two claims for relief are to have the Akebono patent declared the property of Honeywell and correct the "named inventor" for the patent to be exclusively their employee (see http://uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_256.htm) and not Kesavan and Shao and, ultimately, Akebono.

The case is filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and is case number 2:08-CV-13197.

Most employees fail to realize that trade secrets, ideas and inventions often belong to the employer. Non-compete agreements are often overlooked when seeking new employment. In Michigan, non-compete agreements are often enforceable for trade secret protection.

Technorati Tags: non-compete, trade secret, intellectual property, patents

Trade Secret Laws | Memorized Customer Lists a Trade Secret Thoughtcrime?

Can a confidential customer list qualify under trade secret laws if it is merely memorized by a former employee if the employee didn't sign a non-compete or non-solicitation agreement?  According to the Ohio Supreme Court and the Ohio Trade Secrets Act, it can. Robert Martin, a former employee of Al Minor & Associates, took 15 of his former clients with him when he left the company in 2003.  Martin remembered the customer information purely from memory and solicited those clients to a new company.  Upon hearing of this competition, Al Minor filed for damages and an injunction in the trial court.  The trial court referred the trade secret case to a magistrate, who awarded AMA $25,973 in fees that they otherwise would have earned from their former clients.

If you have a non-compete or trade secret law issue you may contact one of our attorneys for a no-risk evaluation or call 866.936.7447 (International Toll Free).

Companies Must Do More To Define and Protect Their Trade Secrets

GLOBAL WATER GROUP, INC., Appellant v. Robert ATCHLEY and Aspen Water, Inc., Appellee. (The Trade Secrets Vault)

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. GLOBAL WATER GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. Robert ATCHLEY and Aspen Water, Inc., Appellee. No. 05-06-00709-CV. Jan. 9, 2008.
Rehearing Overruled Feb. 14, 2008.

Background: Water purification corporation filed lawsuit against its former president and his competing water purification company, asserting claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of shareholder agreement. Following a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, defendants filed motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The 116th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Robert Frost, J., granted motion. Plaintiff appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, O'Neill , J., held that:
(1) plaintiff's formula of compound used in "mixed media pod" during absorption step of water purification process was not a trade secret;
(2) sequence of process used by plaintiff in its water purification system was not a trade secret; and
(3) corporation's former president did not breach shareholder agreement.

Technorati Tags: trade secret, fiduciary, shareholder

Jury Finds Company Trade Secrets Enforceable: $17 Million in Punitive Damages Against Ex-Employees and New Employer

Trade Secret Jury Verdict : Innovative Technologies Corp. v. James Silcott et al. (The Trade Secrets Vault)

The jury awarded $6,475,855.44 in compensatory damages and $17 million in punitive damages in this massive trade secret theft verdict.

The jury found that the salaries of Innovative Technologies employees and its mapping strategies were trade secrets, or that Advanced Management Technologies and Kenton Trace Technologies misappropriated the plaintiff's trade secrets. Jurors found that the plaintiff suffered actual loss proximately caused by the defendants' misappropriation of its trade secrets or that the defendants were unjustly enriched by its misappropriation of the plaintiff's trade secrets.

They found that Advanced Management Technologies acted with purpose to procure contract breaches or terminate the business relationships the plaintiff had with its employees, and that there was no justification for Advanced Management Technologies' conduct. The jury found that Advanced Management Technologies' tortious interference with the plaintiff's business relationship and contracts with its employees was the proximate cause of the damages it suffered. Jurors found that Advanced Management Technologies engaged in a civil conspiracy with the individual defendants or the plaintiff's employees to cause it harm, which was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages.

The competing firm, Advanced Management Technology Inc. of Arlington, Va., was ordered to pay virtually all of the damages, Dyer said, having been found guilty of tortious inference with business relationships, civil conspiracy, and theft of trade secrets for acting in collusion with the former employees of Innovative Technologies.

Technorati Tags: trade secret, non-compete, jury, punitive damages

Non-Compete, Trade Secret & Confidentiality Litigation & Negotiation

We are a Law Firm Specializing In Non-Compete Agreements, Trade Secret Law, Customer List Litigation. Our team is positioned to provide the representation and legal advice which will ensure you understand your legal rights, with offices in Detroit, Michigan and Traverse City Michigan and Los Angeles, California.

Our lawyers have handled complex cases involving millions of dollars in alleged damages, taking several cases to trial on behalf of national and international corporations.  Our non-compete and trade secret attorneys have advised employees, managers, owners and employers in the negotiation of non-competition contracts and helped companies protect their valuable intellectual and intangible property rights. In many instances, immediate injunctive relief is both appropriate and necessary to stop unlawful behavior before customers are lost or the unlawful behavior irreparably harms company interests.

Managing Partner Enrico Schaefer: "Traverse Legal's attorneys know non-compete and trade secret law and pride themselves on advanced litigation techniques which are both cost-effective and budget oriented.  When it comes to technology, there are very few firms that can match our capabilities. Because we are a boutique litigation law firm, we know how to strategically and efficiently accomplish our client's goals. "

If you have an issue involving non-compete agreements, trade secret theft, customer list theft or breach of fiduciary duties by corporate mangers, officers or owners, our lawyers can provide you the legal advice you need to fully protect your rights. Contact us today at 866.936.7447 (international toll free) or send us an email for a no-risk consultation.