An interesting case decided on April 3 in Florida confirms the
axiom that information that is not secret cannot be a trade secret.
Godwin Pumps of America, Inc. v. Ramer, Godwin sued its former
employee, Ramer, for, among other things, trade secret
misappropriation under Florida's Uniform Trade Secret Act (see
here for more on the Act). Godwin argued that there was nothing
in dispute for a jury to hear on Ramer's liability and moved
for the judge to enter summary judgment against Ramer. The judge
denied the motion on the trade secret claim because there was a
dispute over whether the information Ramer
acquired—including information on Godwin's customers,
pricing, products, and services—was actually secret.
Ramer argued that information on Godwin's products and pricing
is available on the Internet, that the state government publishes
information that can be used to identify Godwin's potential or
current customers, and information like that at issue in the case
is routinely acquired and collected by competitors from external
sources, such as customers. The court was convinced to let the case
go to trial. Similar arguments have held up in Massachusetts
courts. See, e.g., Campbell Soup Co. v. Giles, 47 F.3d
467, 469-70, 472 (1st Cir. 1995) (affirming denial of preliminary
injunction by Massachusetts district court in trade secret case
determined in part because "most of the marketing information
was no longer confidential in light of its public disclosure"
to customers and in published sales materials and syndicated data
The lesson here is that employers should think about the
confidential information a departed employee may possess before
filing a trade secret claim. Former employees frequently will argue
that information is not secret to defend against such claims, and
sometimes those arguments are hard to overcome.
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.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
When last we looked in on the Google Books dispute, the Second Circuit had overturned class certification in the suit, brought by the Authors Guild and multiple individual authors, on the basis that the District Court first should have resolved Google’s fair use defense, which could moot the class certification issue.
The America Invents Act, which became fully effective on March 16, 2013, has fundamentally changed U.S. patent law. Some of the most important of these changes relate to the scope of prior art available under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Addressing a decision of patentability by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the and remanded the case, finding that the Board failed to account for critical background information.