1 / 12

Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court

Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court. TRADE SECRETS Introduction. DEFINITION: “TRADE SECRET”. Information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that:

mercury
Download Presentation

Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Seattle Intellectual PropertyInn of Court TRADE SECRETS Introduction

  2. DEFINITION: “TRADE SECRET” • Information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that: • (a) 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 • (b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

  3. STATE LAW SOURCES • RCW 19.108.010, et. seq. • Uniform Trade Secrets Act (46 states and District of Columbia) • Common law of Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Texas • See also Restatement (Third) Unfair Competition

  4. BROAD SCOPE • No Subject Matter Constraints • Competitive advantage from information’s secrecy • Technical and non-technical • Negative know how/what does not work • License forever, even if in public domain: Warner –Lambert v. John F. Reynolds (the Listerine case) 178 F. Supp. 655 (S.D.N.Y. 1959), aff’d 280 F.2d 197 (2d. Cir. 1960)

  5. NO NOVELTY/USEFULNESS/ OBVIOUSNESS CONSTRAINT • Novelty not required; can exist in a combination of known characteristics and components • Usefulness is not required; knowing what does not work is protectable • Difficulty to Reverse Engineer

  6. REASONABLE MEASURES • Efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain secrecy or confidentiality • “Relative Secrecy”/Not absolute secrecy • Contract/lock and key/safe not required

  7. NONDISCLOSURE, NONCOMPETE, NONSOLICITATION • Statehouse efforts to “reform” noncompetes: MA, OR, GA • Enforcement harder to predict • Reluctance to deny a person actual employment in dismal job market

  8. TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION • Proof of “Trade Secret” • Misappropriation - Unauthorized acquisition - Unauthorized disclosure - Unauthorized Use • Proof: direct, circumstantial • Defense: Independent development, reverse engineering, “Clean room”

  9. REMEDIES • Actual losses • Unjust enrichment/disgorgement of ill-gotten gains • Reasonable royalty damages • Exemplary damages for “willful and malicious misappropriation” • Injunctive relief: “a trade secret once lost, is lost forever” - Doctrine of inevitable disclosure

  10. Trade Secrets: Not generally known/ relative secrecy Secret Indefinite Protection Established through reasonable measures and litigation More than one holder Patents Novel, useful, non-obvious Public 20-year term Established through USPTO Only one holder COMPARISON OFTRADE SECRETS AND PATENTS

  11. THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT, 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)-(b) • Access to federal court • Defendant accessed a computer “without authorization” or in a way that “exceeds authorized access” - develop a formal computer usage policy • Loss of at least $5,000

  12. AMERICA INVENTS ACTEffective September 16, 2011 Raises many issues to be considered, including impact on trade secret/patent calculus… …But not here

More Related