Trade Secret Law including the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 in a Nutshell
Authors:
Sandeen, Sharon K. / Rowe, Elizabeth A.
Edition:
2nd
Copyright Date:
2018
21 chapters
have results for trade secrets
Introduction 8 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Although for rhetorical or philosophical reasons a litigant may choose to emphasize either the property or unfair competition views of trade secret law, in reality, trade secret doctrine includes aspects of both. This is because there are two essential requirements of a trade secret misappropriation claim. First, the information to be protected must be a trade secret (a form of intangible property). Second, the trade secrets must have been misappropriated (a form of unfair competition).
- The book concludes in Chapters 8, 9, and 10 with an examination of three important trade secret issues: (1) the protection of trade secrets in dealings with the government; (2) the protection of trade secrets outside of the United States; and (3) potential criminal liability for trade secret misappropriation and related crimes.
- Chapters 2 and 3 explore the definition of a trade secret and the requirements for trade secret protection. Pursuant to the UTSA, there are three requirements. First, the information in question must be secret; in trade secret parlance it must not be “generally known” or “readily ascertainable.” Second, the information must have “independent economic value” because it is secret. Third, for information to be protected as a trade secret it must be the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to protect its secrecy. Both the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) and the EU Trade Secret Directive contain nearly identical definitions.
- Like other areas of law, trade secret law has evolved over a long period of time and while it is important to understand the current state of the law, it is also important to know its historic origins and the theories and policies that underlie trade secret doctrine. An understanding of the evolution of trade secret law is particularly important because there is a tendency in trade secret cases for attorneys and judges to cling to “old” principles of law which, arguably, were modified and refined by the enactment of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (the UTSA).
- With the foregoing in mind, this book begins in Chapter 1 with an examination of the theories, origin, and evolution of trade secret law. An important insight that emerges from this examination is that there is an ongoing debate among scholars whether trade secret doctrine is anchored in property theory or principles of unfair competition law. This debate has naturally led to questions about which approach better protects the interests of society and trade secret owners.
- Open Chapter
Appendix A Uniform Trade Secrets Act with 1985 Amendment 60 results (showing 5 best matches)
- For liability to exist under this Act, a Section 1(4) trade secret must exist and either a person’s acquisition of the trade secret, disclosure of the trade secret to others, or use of the trade secret must be improper under Section 1(2). The mere copying of an unpatented item is not actionable.
- Like traditional trade secret law, the Uniform Act contains general concepts. The contribution of the Uniform Act is substitution of unitary definitions of trade secret and trade secret misappropriation, and a single statute of limitations for the various property, quasi-contractual, and violation of fiduciary relationship theories of noncontractual liability utilized at common law. The Uniform Act also codifies the results of the better reasoned cases
- “Under technological and economic pressures, industry continues to rely on trade secret protection despite the doubtful and confused status of both common law and statutory remedies. Clear, uniform trade secret protection is urgently needed. . . .”
- The Uniform Act codifies the basic principles of common law trade secret protection, preserving its essential distinctions from patent law. Under both the Act and common law principles, for example, more than one person can be entitled to trade secret protection with respect to the same information, and
- (i) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2 Trade Secret Subject Matter 116 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The modern view of state trade secret law under the UTSA defines a trade secret very broadly. Almost anything of competitive value to a company can be a trade secret if it meets the three requirements of trade secret protection: secrecy, independent economic value, and reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. These requirements are embedded in the definition of a trade secret under the UTSA, which defines a trade secret as:
- There are at least five ways that trade secret information can be properly acquired.
- Trade secret owners often have difficulty identifying their trade secrets with specificity. This
- Whether trade secret information is properly or improperly acquired by others, there is always a risk that it will lose its trade secret status. This is because once a trade secret is disclosed and becomes generally known or readily ascertainable, it cannot meet the secrecy requirement of trade secret law. The trade secret owner’s only recourse in this situation is to sue
- Second, trade secret litigation is expensive and the more information that is claimed as a trade secret, the greater the costs. According to surveys by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), it can cost from $500,000 to well over one-million dollars to pursue a trade secret misappropriation case through trial. Because much of the discovery and presentation of evidence in trade secret misappropriation cases involves the identification of trade secrets and proof of trade secrecy, each claimed trade secret adds numerous points of potential dispute.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4 Trade Secret Litigation 154 results (showing 5 best matches)
- There are many aspects to trade secret litigation, including substantive, procedural, and strategic considerations. This chapter gives an overview of trade secret litigation primarily from the perspective of the plaintiff who bears the burden of pleading and proving a claim for relief. It begins with a consideration of the essential elements of a cause of action for trade secret misappropriation, focusing on the critical element of misappropriation. It then discusses a variety of issues that are likely to arise during the pleading and discovery phases of trade secret cases, including: (1) the requirement that trade secrets be identified with specificity; and (2) the need to protect trade secrets during litigation. While issues related to defending against a trade secret misappropriation claim are mentioned throughout this chapter, Chapter 5 provides a detailed description of applicable defense arguments and affirmative defenses. Following that chapter, remedies for trade secret...
- The prototypical trade secret case involves the actual or threatened disclosure of trade secrets by a person (often a former employee) who knew or should have known of the existence of the trade secrets and subsequently acted in a manner that constitutes misappropriation of those trade secrets. As long as the subject trade secrets remain in the possession of the direct misappropriator, a lawsuit against that person should suffice to protect the interests of the trade secret owner. Sometimes, however, the direct misappropriator will disclose the trade secrets to another and the issue of third-party (or indirect or secondary) liability arises.
- in § 4.9.1, the key to imposing liability on third-parties who did not participate in the original misappropriation of trade secrets is to prove that they knew or had reason to know that the information they acquired, disclosed, or used is trade secret information that was misappropriated by someone else. In practice, trade secret owners can enhance the possibility of imposing third-party liability by putting competitors and other potential defendants on notice of the existence of trade secrets and the potential that such trade secrets were (or are about to be) misappropriated. Typically, this is done in a “notice letter” in which counsel for a trade secret owner advises a third-party of his client’s trade secret
- Conceptually, the simplest form of trade secret misappropriation occurs when a trade secret is acquired directly by improper means by a person who knows or has reason to know that the information is a trade secret. However, there are few reported cases which involve acquisition by improper means disconnected from an allegation of an implied or express duty of confidentiality or the subsequent disclosure or use of the trade secrets.
- does not include a definition of “improper means.” This may be explained by the fact that it does not define the wrongful acquisition of trade secrets (not followed by a disclosure or use of the trade secrets) as an actionable wrong. Rather, only the wrongful use or disclosure of trade secrets (or, in some cases, the threatened use or disclosure of trade secrets) after being acquired either rightfully or wrongfully is actionable under the
- Open Chapter
Appendix B The “New” Economic Espionage Act , as Amended by the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 73 results (showing 5 best matches)
- (4) The ability and limitations of trade secret owners to prevent the misappropriation of trade secrets outside of the United States, to enforce any judgment against foreign entities for theft of trade secrets, and to prevent imports based on theft of trade secrets overseas.
- (2) USE OF TRADE SECRET INFORMATION IN ANTI-RETALIATION LAWSUIT.—An individual who files a lawsuit for retaliation by an employer for reporting a suspected violation of law may disclose the trade secret to the attorney of the individual and use the trade secret information in the court proceeding, if the individual—
- (b) RIGHTS OF TRADE SECRET OWNERS.—The court may not authorize or direct the disclosure of any information the owner asserts to be a trade secret unless the court allows the owner the opportunity to file a submission under seal that describes the interest of the owner in keeping the information confidential. No submission under seal made under this subsection may be used in a prosecution under this chapter for any purpose other than those set forth in this section, or otherwise
- (5) A breakdown of the trade secret protections afforded United States companies by each country that is a trading partner of the United States and enforcement efforts available and undertaken in each such country, including a list identifying specific countries where trade secret theft, laws, or enforcement is a significant problem for United States companies.
- Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than the greater of $10,000,000 or 3 times the value of the stolen trade secret to the organization, including expenses for research and design and other costs of reproducing the trade secret that the organization has thereby avoided.
- Open Chapter
Preface 7 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Because a wide array of information can be protected if it meets the requirements of trade secret law, it is important for businesses and their attorneys to understand how to identify and protect valuable trade secrets. Conversely, due to the high costs of trade secret litigation, it is also imperative for businesses to understand the limits of trade secret protection. For important public policy reasons, not every bit of information that a business creates or holds is deserving of trade secret protection.
- In this book, you will learn the details of trade secret law under common law, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and the DTSA (interpretations of which will continue to be in development as new cases are decided). Topics covered include: (1) the scope of trade secret protection; (2) the requirements for establishing trade secret rights (3) the legal and policy limitations of trade secret protection; (4) the essential elements of a claim for trade secret misappropriation; (5) major defenses; and (6) available remedies.
- Because there are many practical aspects to trade secret protection, the book is one-part legal, and one-part practical. In addition to explaining the black-letter law governing trade secrets, it provides practical advice on how to protect trade secrets and an overview of many of the subtle issues that can arise in trade secret misappropriation cases. It is designed to provide useful information to attorneys, law students, and business professionals alike. It can also serve as a companion to our casebook,
- In 2016, Congress federalized civil trade scret law in the U.S. and the European Union adopted a comprehensive Directive concerning the protection of trade secrets. Accordingly, the most significant change to this second edition is the timely additions relating to the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) and the EU Trade Secret Directive, two laws that went into effect in mid-2016 and which are certain to change the landscape of trade secret law in the United States and Europe.
- As of the date of publication of this book, nearly all states (47) have adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (the UTSA) and North Carolina has enacted a statute that is similar to the UTSA. The DTSA also largely mirrors the main provisions of the UTSA. Accordingly, this book focuses on trade secret doctrine as defined by the UTSA. However, given the size and influence of the two states that have yet to adopt the UTSA (Massachusetts and New York), applicable provisions of the
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3 The Requirements for Trade Secret Protection 67 results (showing 5 best matches)
- of trade secret protection; without it the putative trade secret owner cannot bring a successful trade secret misappropriation claim.
- Although it is clear that information that is generally known and readily ascertainable cannot be a trade secret, it is also clear that unique and secret combinations of known information might be. Known colloquially as “combination trade secrets,” the EU Trade Secret Directive attempts to capture the essence of the concept by defining trade secrets to include information that “is secret in the sense that
- First, although all trade secret owners should attempt to keep their trade secret and proprietary information as confidential as possible, absolute secrecy is not required to meet the requirements of trade secret protection. Rather, pursuant to the relative secrecy doctrine, the owner of information that would otherwise qualify for trade secret protection does not lose protection if the information is shared with others in a manner that is reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. In practice, this means that trade secrets should only be shared with individuals and companies that are under an express or implied duty of confidentiality.
- The foregoing illustrates the principal purpose and function of the reasonable efforts requirement; namely, to require trade secret owners to identify their putative trade secrets and put others on notice
- There are a variety of steps that a putative trade secret owner can take to protect its information, all of which are based more upon common sense than the dictates of law. As a practical matter, because trade secret litigation can be expensive, success is not guaranteed, and trade secrets can be lost in the process, a trade secret owner should institute preemptory comprehensive measures against the wrongful acquisition, disclosure, or use of its information. This is particularly true with respect to the “crown jewels” of a company. To meet the reasonable efforts requirement of trade secret law,
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6 Remedies for Trade Secret Misappropriation 45 results (showing 5 best matches)
- As a practical matter, the duration of a permanent injunction depends upon the status of the plaintiff’s trade secrets at the time the injunction is issued. If the trade secrets are no longer secret at that time, then an injunction is not needed to prevent them from being disclosed to the public, but may be needed to prevent the defendant from benefiting from any lead-time advantage. This is usually measured by the difference in time that it took the defendant to get to market versus other competitors who learn of the trade secrets once they are disclosed to the public. If a plaintiff’s trade secrets retain their trade secret status at the time a judgment is about to be entered, then it may be appropriate to grant injunctive relief without a temporal limit, subject to the right of the defendant to apply to the court to terminate the injunction when the trade secrets lose their secrecy. But a court (except, perhaps, in non-UTSA jurisdictions) may also limit the length of an...
- At common law, compensatory damages for torts are ordinarily awarded only for the actual harm suffered by the plaintiff. In the case of business torts, actual harm is usually measured by lost profits. This same measure of damages is available to plaintiffs in trade secret cases under both the UTSA and DTSA, but due to the nature of trade secret misappropriation claims and the difficulty of proving lost profits in a competitive environment, the allowable measure of compensatory damages in trade secret cases is broader.
- If a plaintiff in a trade secret case acts quickly and is successful in preventing the actual use or disclosure of its trade secrets, then there should be no harm to its trade secrets, no matter how measured. This often makes it difficult for plaintiffs to prove damages in cases where only acquisition by improper means is shown, but clever plaintiffs may develop a cognizable theory of harm that relates to the act of misappropriation itself, and not the trade secrets.
- Usually, the length of permanent injunctive relief in trade secret cases is limited by the UTSA to the period of time during which the subject trade secrets remain secret.
- One of the reasons that statutes are often drafted in cases where there are similar common law claims for relief is due to the limited scope of common law remedies and the practical difficulty of proving damages based upon a business’ losses. In a competitive environment, it is often difficult to prove that, “but for” the defendant’s misappropriation of trade secrets, the plaintiff (trade secret owner) would have earned more profits. This is particularly true if the plaintiff is not engaged in a business enterprise that uses its trade secrets.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8 Protecting Trade Secrets in the Governmental Context 46 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The university refused to disclose the information claiming that they were trade secrets. The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed, finding that the Connecticut Trade Secrets Act expressly applies to both public and private entities, and that the status of the university as a public institution did not negate its ability to claim trade secret protection for information that it created and maintained as a trade secret. The fact that the university was not an entity engaged in trade was irrelevant.
- In annual reports issued by the U.S. Trade Representative (known as Special 301 Reports), some countries are criticized for conditioning regulatory and marketing approval on the disclosure of confidential information. China, for instance, has been criticized for its use of regulatory pressure to force companies to license, and thereby disclose, their technologies. In these countries, even the adequate marking of trade secrets may not suffice to protect information that is submitted to the government, forcing companies that wish to conduct business in those countries to choose between trade secret protection and access to markets. Which choice is made should depend upon the importance of the information claimed to be a trade secret and the value of the potential market. From a practical business standpoint, sometimes the value of a new market exceeds the value of the trade secrets, something that all attorneys should consider when determining how aggressive a trade secret strategy...
- There are several ways that trade secret issues arise in the governmental context. The first involves the sharing of trade secrets or other information with the government because of regulatory oversight or the requirements of a government contract.
- If a company submitted trade secret information to the government and that information was improperly disclosed by the government to the public, it is the trade secret owner who ultimately bears the costs of the government’s misguided actions. This is because, when a trade secret is revealed, it loses all of its value, the loss is irreparable, and the company may not be made whole by monetary damages.
- Although often cited for the proposition that trade secrets are a form of property,
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1 The Theories, Origin, and Evolution of Trade Secret Law 44 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The third factor leading to the drafting and adoption of the UTSA was a desire to improve trade secret law as it had developed at common law. Many businesses and their attorneys were concerned about the incomplete and inconsistent development of trade secret doctrine and, thus, advocated for a uniform act to make trade secret law more consistent and predictable. As explained in the UTSA,
- 152 (1974). The paradox with respect to trade secrets is that the holders of secrets are often disinclined to share the very information that is needed for a potential buyer or licensee to determine if it wants to purchase or license the information. Trade secret law specifies the circumstances under which disclosures can be made without loss of trade secrecy. As noted in
- The foregoing leads to the third, but seemingly illogical, purpose of trade secret law. It emerged out of
- By the mid-1930s, enough trade secret principles had developed so that in 1939 the American Law Institute could “restate” the law of trade secrecy in three sections of the
- Another important development in the evolution of trade secret law is the embrace of U.S. trade secret principles by other countries. As further explained in Chapter 9, although at first reluctant to commit to an international agreement that requires the protection of trade secrets, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, known as the TRIPS Agreement, requires all WTO-Member countries to protect “undisclosed information” to at least a minimal degree.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5 Defenses to Trade Secret Misappropriation 75 results (showing 5 best matches)
- To avoid the unwanted “taint” of outsider information, companies receiving information from outside sources should first determine the trade secret status of the information before allowing it to be used or disclosed within their business operations. If all or some of the information constitutes legitimate trade secrets, then either the trade secrets should not be received at all or they should be kept separate and not commingled with the recipient’s information. It is also advisable to enter into a written agreement with the provider of information to clarify whether any part of its information is a trade secret, with the goals being: (1) to limit the amount of information that is designated as a trade secret; and (2) to mark the trade secrets for special handling.
- Proof of the existence of a trade secret is part of plaintiff’s
- In addition to looking for publicly available information to determine whether information that may have once been a trade secret has lost its trade secrecy, a defendant in a trade secret misappropriation case should consider how the putative trade secrets are being used and distributed by the plaintiff. This inquiry will necessarily overlap with the reasonable efforts requirement that plaintiff has the burden of proving, but it comes at the issue of trade secrecy from a slightly different and broader direction. The key is not whether reasonable efforts were engaged in, but whether they succeeded in keeping the information secret.
- In most trade secret cases, the defense arguments include the assertion that the claimed trade secrets do not qualify for trade secret protection and that there was no act of misappropriation. It may also be argued—particularly where the putative trade secrets have not been disclosed or used—that the plaintiff cannot prove that the alleged misappropriation caused any actual or threatened harm. Ownership issues may also be raised, particularly in cases where former employees claim to have developed the information or invention on their own time (s
- As with all statutes of limitations, two issues arise in trade secret cases: (1) when does a cause of action for trade secret misappropriation accrue; and (2) is trade secret misappropriation a continuing wrong? The answer to both questions is clear under the UTSA and the DTSA, but may not be so clear in states that have not adopted the UTSA’s statute of limitations verbatim.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9 Protecting Trade Secrets Internationally 35 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Whether trade secrets are protected to the same extent in other countries as they are in the United States is an open question. This is not necessarily because countries are not committed to protecting trade secrets and other forms of confidential information, but may be because other countries apply the applicable legal concepts differently. Additionally, other countries may not have the same enforcement procedures as the United States and may not have the resources that are needed to consider trade secret claims in a timely manner. This explains, in part, the push for the EU Trade Secret Directive which emphasizes the need for preliminary relief designed to prevent the disclosure and use of trade secrets.
- hile the existence of Article 39.2 may give U.S. trade secret owners hope that Article 39 enhanced trade secret protection abroad, this may not be the case in all countries. Some countries have taken the position that their pre-TRIPS laws are sufficient to meet the obligations of Article 39. This reality is ameliorated somewhat by the efforts of the United States to strengthen protection for trade secrets and other forms of intellectual property rights through Free Trade Agreements and other initiatives.
- Adoption of the EU Trade Secret Directive was prompted, in part, by concerns that the trade secret laws of EU-Member countries varied widely. The EU Trade Secret Directive is certain to alter the
- While the precise details of the trade secret laws of each EU-Member country may differ, the basic requirements are set forth in the EU Trade Secret Directive which consists of a Preamble that explains the purpose and intent of the Directive, followed by Articles 1–21. Thus, the EU Trade Secret Directive, itself, is a useful resource for understanding how to protect trade secrets in Europe. In this regard,
- Remarkably, while the EU Trade Secret Directive includes provisions that are not found in the text of the UTSA or the DTSA, it closely mirrors U.S. law in specifying what constitutes a trade secret and acts of trade secret misappropriation. Where it differs from U.S. law is in specifying, in detail, numerous limitations on the scope of trade secret rights, many of which can be found in U.S. case law but are not in the explicit text of the UTSA or DTSA.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7 Protecting Trade Secrets in the Employment Context 71 results (showing 5 best matches)
- do not directly address the question of trade secret ownership. This is because most trade secret cases involve the transfer of information from the putative trade secret owner (like the company-employer) to another (like a company-employee). Sometimes, however, the person who is being accused of trade secret misappropriation claims to be the one who actually created the trade secret (
- We learned in § 3.5 that a company’s reasonable efforts to protect trade secrets are critical. Ideally, no company wants to be in the position of having to prove that it engaged in reasonable efforts because it would mean that the company is in litigation and that its trade secrets may already have been misappropriated. However, the safest and most conservative approach for any company that owns trade secrets is to be prepared for the day when it may have to prove its efforts to a court. This means that trade secret protection should not be an afterthought. Instead, the protection of trade secrets requires a conscious risk assessment approach that anticipates and ultimately stems the inappropriate dissemination or disclosure of trade secrets.
- The lesson for trade secret owners is that they must be vigilant and proactive in maintaining and protecting their trade secrets. Vigilance is an ongoing process that requires comprehensive security measures. Employers should consider establishing and implementing trade secret protection programs tailored to their specific needs.
- Planning for trade secret security must be done in a proactive rather than a reactive framework. The trade secret owner needs an infrastructure in place to protect its secrets; one that includes specific processes and technological measures. Conducting a risk analysis of potential threats to the company’s trade secrets should be comprehensive, paying attention to people, processes, and technology.
- Statistically, most trade secret misappropriation cases arise in the employment context. The typical case involves the decision of a valued employee to either start her own business or leave her current employment to start work with a competitor. As noted previously, all too frequently the former employer is caught unawares and may not appreciate that it owns trade secrets until it becomes concerned about what its former employee might disclose. Thus, trade secret cases that arise in the employment context often involve after-the-fact efforts by employers to identify trade secrets and to assert implied duties of confidentiality which, depending upon the circumstances, may or may not succeed. Where the former employer is sophisticated and has taken steps to identify and protect its trade secrets before employees leave their employ, the adequacy and enforceability of those efforts are often called into question.
- Open Chapter
Index 60 results (showing 5 best matches)
Chapter 10 Trade Secret Related Crimes 51 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Rights Of Trade Secret Owners
- Because the principal wrongdoing as defined by the CFAA is “accessing a protected computer,” its provisions conceptually overlap with the improper acquisition provisions of trade secret law.
- In states that do not have specific criminal trade secret statutes, other laws which prohibit larceny, property theft, or the receipt of stolen property may cover trade secret misappropriation, particularly if the alleged trade secrets are embodied in a tangible form.
- Generally, when a criminal trade secret action is brought, the prosecutors must prove that the information in question is a trade secret in much the same way as would be required in a civil action (unless the language of the criminal statute suggests otherwise). Accordingly, the same kinds of evidence, such as efforts to preserve secrecy, are required. Unlike civil cases, however, one important additional
- (4) the term “owner,” with respect to a trade secret, means the person or entity in whom or in which rightful legal or equitable title to, or license in, the trade secret is reposed.
- Open Chapter
Outline 42 results (showing 5 best matches)
Table of Authorities 24 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Sandeen, Sharon K., The Evolution of Trade Secret Law and Why Courts Commit Error When They Do Not Follow the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 33 Hamline L. Rev. 493 (2010), 11, 16, 214
- Rowe, Elizabeth A., and Daniel M. Mahfood, Trade Secrets, Trade, and Extraterritoriality, 66 Ala. L. Rev. 63 (2014), 360, 363
- Almeling, David, Darin Synder et al., A Statistical Analysis of Trade Secret Litigation in State Courts,
- Bone, Robert G., Secondary Liability for Trade Secret Misappropriation: A Comment, 22 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech L. J. 539 (2006), 152
- Dole, Richard, The Uniform Trade Secrets Act—Trends and Prospects, 33 Hamline L. Rev. 409 (2010), 149
- Open Chapter
Acknowledgments 3 results
- Professor Sandeen wishes to thank her research assistants, particularly Jessica Alm and Holly Danielson, for their excellent work on the first edition of this book, and Cara Moulton for her work on the second edition of this book. Credit also goes to a long-list of research assistants who helped with her trade secret research throughout the years. She is also grateful for the work of the burgeoning Trade Secret Scholars community that has greatly enriched scholarship on the topic, much of which is cited in this book.
- Professor Rowe wishes to acknowledge and thank her many current and former law students who have continued to motivate her study of trade secret law. She is grateful to Daniel Flood and Alexandra Graves for their research assistance on this second edition, as well as previous trade secret research assistants, including most recently, Nicholas Camillo, Jennifer Dweck, Michal-Ane McIntosh, Jeanette Roorda, and Christopher Shand, whose contributions are indirectly reflected herein. Thanks also to the University of Florida Levin College of law for its generous research support.
- The Uniform Law Commission (also known as the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws) not only allowed us to quote extensively from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), but granted permission to include the entirety of the UTSA (as amended in 1985), with commentary, in Appendix A to this book.
- Open Chapter
About the Authors 2 results
- Elizabeth A. Rowe is a Professor of Law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law and the Director of the Program in Intellectual Property Law. She teaches Trade Secret Law, Corporate Espionage, Trademark Law, and Patent Law. Professor Rowe has been named a Distinguished Teaching Scholar and she is currently the holder of the University Term Professsorship, and the Feldman Gale Term Professorship in Intellectual Property Law. She is a former litigation partner at Hale and Dorr (now WilmerHale) in Boston where her practice focused largely on trade secret litigation and employment litigation. She received her Juris Doctorate,
- Sharon K. Sandeen is the Robins Kaplan LLP Distinguished Professor in Intellectual Property Law and Director of the IP Institute at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in Saint Paul, Minnesota where she has taught a variety of intellectual property courses, including trade secret law, since 2002. Prior to starting her teaching career, Professor Sandeen practiced law in California for seventeen years, specializing in IP litigation, protection, and counseling. Professor Sandeen received an LL.M. from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, and a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Berkeley. She is a member of the American Law Institute, a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, and a member of the California Bar.
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: December 15th, 2017
- ISBN: 9781683285267
- Subject: Intellectual Property
- Series: Nutshells
- Type: Overviews
- Description: Trade Secret Law is the first and only book in the Nutshell series to cover trade secret law in depth. It was written as a companion to Cases and Materials on Trade Secret Law by Rowe and Sandeen (the first casebook on trade secret law), but adds more practical advice. Thus, it is a useful resource for attorneys and law students alike. It could be a supplement to a course on trade secret law or an IP survey course that covers trade secret law, as most now do. Like the casebook, it focuses on the predominate law governing trade secrets in the U.S.: The Uniform Trade Secrets Act (now applicable in 47 of 50 states). The Trade Secret Law in a Nutshell addresses both international and criminal enforcement of trade secret rights. The Second Edition includes significant legal developments, including coverage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.
