The Trade Secret
Read our privacy policy for more information.
What is a Trade Secret? According to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, misappropriation is defined as: With respect to damages the Uniform Trade Secrets Act explains: With respect to injunctive relief the Uniform Trade Secrets Act explains: There are currently 3 Comments comments. Edward Heller April 12, 3: Anon April 12, 8: Lance Arnold August 4, 9: Tysons Corner, VA January 8, Attracting and Keeping Good Corporate Clients: Navigating the relationship between inside and outside counsel January 10, Patent Practice for Beginners — January January 23, 7: Intellectual Property Policy Considerations January 31, 9: Chicago March 12, Registering your website with the Chinese government?
The Road to Obtaining a U.
Patent Why do you want a Patent? Moving from Idea to Patent: When Do You Have an Invention?
GE lawsuit accuses Uptake of 'ruthless scheme to poach' executives and trade secrets
Can Ideas Be Patented or Protected? Some of the ways to protect a trade secret are as follows:. If the trade secret is revealed in violation of a non-disclosure agreement, you can sue for damages.
However, once the secret is revealed, it is hard to get the trade-secret status resumed. Trade secrets are protected under many state laws, Federal statutes and some international laws. If you have questions or concerns about trade secrets or any other intellectual property, you should consult an intellectual-property lawyer.
What is a Trade Secret?
Print "What is a trade secret, and how is it different from a patent or copyright? How Intellectual Property Works. What is a trade secret, and how is it different from a patent or copyright? Third, the statutory counts should fail, according to Synchrony, because the allegations were vague and speculative and raised, at most, the potential for a future violation, which should fail to pass statutory muster. The Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe rejected each of these arguments. She did, however, dismiss the claims that Synchrony had violated a fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty allegedly owed to Jazz, relying upon the gist-of-the-action doctrine.
A California manufacturer of sleep medications, Jazz, had hired Synchrony, a Pennsylvanian marketing company, to expand the reach of its medication Xyrem, an FDA-approved medicine designed to treat narcolepsy.
Legal Analysis
More than three months before the MSA was to expire, Synchrony informed Jazz of its intentions to work with a competitor to promote its new narcolepsy drug. After a week had passed, Synchrony then notified Jazz in writing of its intention to terminate their relationship. As a consequence, Jazz filed suit against Synchrony, who responded with a motion to dismiss. Prior to the filing of the motion to dismiss, the parties had stipulated to a preliminary injunction.
By virtue of this, Synchrony argued that there no longer existed a live controversy requiring the continuation of the lawsuit, which had become moot.