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.
As set forth in the decision, Mylan's failure to respond to a deficiency letter received from FDA in May 2014 "raise[d] serious questions in the Court's mind as to the viability of Mylan's ANDA product as currently formulated."
In an attempt to provide further guidance and regulation in this area, since April 2012, a growing number of state legislatures in the United States have passed various forms of social media privacy legislation.
Fed Cir affirms judgment upholding the PTO's patent term adjustment calculation. The patentee had filed its original application in 2002, yet the PTO did not take any action until 2006, when it issued a restriction requirement.