Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Protecting Trade Secrets: The Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine
When a former executive accepts a position with a competitor, how does the original company protect its trade secrets? One method is to invoke the doctrine of inevitable disclosure, which prohibits a former executive from competing when he or she cannot help but disclose or use the former employer's trade secrets to do so. Divulging these secrets, of course, would be in violation of the executive's continuing fiduciary duty to his or her former employer. Disclosure may be considered “inevitable” when the former executive accepts a nearly identical position with a direct competitor of the former employer, and will be called upon to use the former employer's trade secrets.
In some cases, the doctrine has been used to support a claim for injunctive relief predicated on an enforceable non-competition agreement. In others, it has been used to bolster a claim for injunctive relief based on misappropriation of trade secrets. Decisions by courts in New York reflect both approaches. A January 2003 decision by the Third Department in Marietta Corp. v. Fairhurst, 2002 WL 31898398 (3d Dep't, Jan. 2, 2003), reversed a trial court's decision that, had it stood, would have represented a sea change in the law, because the trial court issued an injunction based on the inevitable disclosure doctrine in the absence of either a non-compete or evidence of actual misappropriation of trade secrets.
Background
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.