Addressing the issue of trade secret infringement, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the appellate court's decision holding that memorization and use of trade secret information belonging to a former employer constitutes trade secret infringement in accordance with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA"). Al Minor & Assoc. v. Martin, 2008 Ohio LEXIS 240 (O'Donnell, J.).

Al Minor & Associates (AMA) is an actuarial firm that designs and administers retirement plans. AMA's clientele had been developed by its founder Al Minor since 1983. The plaintiff, Robert E. Martin was hired by AMA in 1998 as a pension analyst. Martin was not required to sign an employment contract. Martin later organized his own company, which provided the same type of services as AMA. Upon learning of Martin's company, AMA filed the present trade secret suit against Martin. During his tenure at AMA, Martin memorized the customer lists of AMA and used these customer lists to aid him in his own venture.

The trial court referred the case to a magistrate judge who held that Martin misappropriated AMA's client list in violation of the UTSA. Martin appealed (to the state appellate court) asserting that "a client list memorized by a former employee cannot be the basis of a trade secret violation." After that appellate court confirmed that the trial court's decision was in conflict with Greenwald v. Cuyaho, Martin filed a discretionary appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the ultimate decision regarding whether a client list is a protected trade secret does not depend on whether a former employee memorized it. Rather, the Court held that memorization is no defense to a claim of trade secret infringement. Further, the Court noted that there is nothing in the UTSA to suggest that a distinction was to be made between information that had been reduced to some tangible form and information that has only been memorized. The Supreme Court of Ohio further noted that the legislature could have excluded memorized trade secrets from the UTSA, but it did not.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.