Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> The Trade Secrets Vault

Intellectual Property Law

: The Trade Secrets Vault

Supreme Court of Ohio trade secret decision

AL MINOR & ASSOC., INC., Appellee, v. MARTIN, Appellant. Nos. 2006-2340, 2007-0121. Submitted Nov. 6, 2007. Decided Feb. 6, 2008. Background: Employer brought action against former employee to obtain monetary and injunctive relief for violating Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) by contacting employer's clients from memory. The Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, awarded damages, but denied injunction. Former employee appealed. The Court of Appeals, Bryant, J., affirmed and certified conflict. Appeal was permitted. Holding: The Supreme Court, O'Donnell , J., held that client list was a trade secret, even though it was memorized. 1. Information that constitutes a trade secret pursuant to R.C. 1333.61(D) does not lose its character as a trade secret if it has been memorized. 2. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act does not apply to the use of memorized information that is not a trade secret pursuant to R.C. 1333.61(D) . Fry, Waller & McCann Co., L.P.A., Barry A. Waller , and Derek L. Graham , for appellee. McNees, Wallace & Nurick, L.L.C., Samuel N. Lillard , and Elizabeth J. Birch , for appellant. O'DONNELL , J. Robert E. Martin, a former employee of Al Minor & Associates, Inc. ("AMA"), appeals from a decision of the Franklin County Court of Appeals that affirmed a trial court judgment that denied equitable relief but entered a $25,973 verdict in favor of AMA for fees not generated from former clients Martin had solicited using information he had memorized while working for AMA. The court of appeals also certified that its decision conflicted with the decision in Michael Shore & Co. v. Greenwald....

Full post as published by The Trade Secrets Vault on February 09, 2008 (boomark / email).