The Cruel Lessons of Wanke, Industrial, Commercial, Residential, Inc. v. Keck (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1151
By: Charles L. Post
Defendants in trade secret and unfair competition cases often have fewer resources than the plaintiff companies that bring them. This is often the case in “classic” trade secret misappropriation scenarios: former employees form a new
Courts are reluctant to protect customer lists when they consist of information from public sources (such as business directories). (Morelife, Inc. v. Perry (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1514, 1521-1527.) On the other hand, where the employer has expended time and effort identifying customers with particular needs or characteristics, courts will prohibit former employees from
A recent study by Symantec shows that employee theft of employer confidential information is widespread. A summary of the survey is available at www4.symantec.com/marketinginfo/data. The survey was conducted by a private research institute. Some of the more alarming results of the study include:
There are good, legitimate reasons for filing a trade secret and unfair competition case. The protection of trade secrets and proprietary information and protection against unfair conduct by competitors are just a few. There are also business reasons for bringing such a claim, including burdening a competitor or a startup competitor with the cost of
If location is the most important word in the restaurant business, then the three most important words for a plaintiff in a trade-secret or unfair-competition practice must be theory, theory, and theory. Each legal theory must be supported by its own facts and evidence and a thorough understanding of the legal consequences of asserting and
