ARTICLE
21 September 2016

No Explicit Efforts To Maintain Secrecy? No Problem, Suggests The Ninth Circuit

O
Orrick

Contributor

Orrick logo
Orrick is a global law firm focused on serving the technology & innovation, energy & infrastructure and finance sectors. Founded over 150 years ago, Orrick has offices in 25+ markets worldwide. Financial Times selected Orrick as the Most Innovative Law Firm in North America for three years in a row.
In Direct Technologies, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc., the Ninth Circuit set forth an interesting take on what is sufficient to demonstrate reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy under the CUTSA.
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In Direct Technologies, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc., the Ninth Circuit set forth an interesting take on what is sufficient to demonstrate reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("CUTSA"). In the case, plaintiff Direct Technologies, LLC asserted a trade secret misappropriation claim against defendant Electronic Arts regarding the disclosure of its usb drive prototype for Electronic Arts to a third-party. The district court granted summary judgment for Electronic Arts, finding that no reasonable jury could find that Direct Technologies had taken reasonable efforts to maintain the confidentiality of its prototype.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed. While agreeing that "the record shows that [Direct Technologies] did not do much, if anything, to explicitly protect its prototype design," the Ninth Circuit nevertheless declined to affirm the decision on that basis. Citing the 1974 Ninth Circuit decision in Pachmayr Gun Works, Inc. v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., the Ninth Circuit reasoned that there might be factual circumstances where an "implied relationship of confidentiality exists between two business partners," and thus, it could be reasonable not to make any additional efforts to maintain the confidentiality of the information at issue. One such circumstance, discussed in Pachmayr and raised again here, is the disclosure of a trade secret to a potential purchaser to enable the appraisal of the object or information. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit side stepped the confidentiality issue and whether the enactment of CUTSA preempted Pachmayr, by affirming the trade secret judgment on the grounds that Direct Technologies had not demonstrated any independent economic value for the prototype.

It will be interesting to see whether this case and the potential of implied confidential relationships will alter the landscape of summary judgment rulings on confidentiality issues in CUTSA cases. Only time will tell.

Twitter: @TS_Watch

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More