ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Bookmark Follow Me Email to a friend

Indiana

: Indiana Civil & Business Lawyer

Trade Secrets Twofer: Smalls Business and What Makes a Trade Secrets Case

Remember trade secrets affect small businesses , too.  This reminder comes from the Pasadena Star-News - Trade secrets: Local company counter-sues printer giant

HACIENDA HEIGHTS - A local green startup firm has counter-sued a printing giant, claiming that it illegally cracked down on the right to resell its used product.

Hacienda Heights-based Green Project Inc. alleges in a lawsuit filed July 27 in U.S. District Court in Oregon that Epson America Inc. and its parent, Japan-based Seiko Epson Corp., sent a company spy into the facility to gain access to trade secrets.

The company also claims that Epson punished it and firms like it for reselling recycled Epson cartridges.

***
But Epson's lawyers maintained they have a case against Green Project.

Axelrod pointed to the "first sale" doctrine, adding that the doctrine of first sale does not apply in this case, because there is evidence the used cartridges were collected out of the U.S. Wu said his firm works with brokers who document that cartridges were collected in the U.S.

Wu's company is seeking to be dropped from Epson's original suit, and for Epson to pay damages and legal fees. It's also looking to stop Epson from using any secrets that Seitz allegedly obtained.

Although a press release, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on a Trade Secret Matter has the virtue of clearly pointing out what makes a trade secrets case:
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated summary judgment in a trade secret case.  Cudd Pressure Control Inc. v. Roles, No. 08-20389 (5th Cir. June 11, 2009), available at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C08/08-20389.0.wpd.pdf.

Ronnie Roles worked for Cudd Pressure Control Inc. until he (and several other former Cudd employees) joined a newly-formed competing business. Cudd filed suit, alleging violations of trade secret laws. The district court granted summary judgment for the former employees on the ground that the information at issue did not constitute trade secrets.

The Court reversed the summary judgment because the former employees did not move for summary judgment on the ground it was granted on and the district court could not grant summary judgment sua sponte on a ground not requested by the moving party. The Court then examined whether summary judgment was proper on the grounds advanced by the former employees and concluded that it was not. First, summary judgment was improper on the ground that the former employees did not use Cudd?s confidential information because evidence indicated that the former employees did use this information to lure investors and to build a business plan. Second, summary judgment on the ground that Cudd failed to show damages was improper because Cudd had not had a sufficient opportunity to gather evidence regarding its damages. Thus, the Court vacated the summary judgment award and remanded the case.

So what are you doing to protect your trade secrets?

Full post as published by Indiana Civil & Business Lawyer on August 30, 2009 (boomark / email).

Related Law Blog Posts
Search Blog Directory:

Search Blog Directory:

Related Law Articles

Related Law Questions

Lawsuits and Settlements


















US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource









Click here






Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!











Click here
0.2785 secs