Tenth Circuit affirms summary judgment due to plaintiff’s failure to establish existence of trade secrets
The Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in Double Eagle Alloys, Inc. Apr. The district court evaluated plaintiff’s claim by analyzing four factors: “(1) whether
has sufficiently identified the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets The district court evaluated plaintiff’s claim by analyzing four factors: (1) whether had sufficiently identified the allegedly stolen trade secrets and business data First, the Tenth Circuit stated: “To qualify as a trade secret, (1) the owner must have ‘taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret,’ and (2) the information must derive ‘independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information‘” In addition, the court stated, the plaintiff must “describe the subject matter of the trade secret with sufficient particularity to separate it from matters of general knowledge in the trade,” noting that “
t is inadequate for plaintiffs to cite and incorporate by reference hundreds of documents that purportedly reference or reflect the trade secret information.”[the plaintiff]Applying these requirements, the court focused on three categories of alleged trade secrets: specifications for various materials, pricing, and customer drawings. The Tenth Circuit determined that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that its material specification was subject to special protection, that it was known only by a few people The court found that the plaintiff had posted certain material specifications on its website. [the plaintiff]There was no evidence describing the significance of the plaintiff’s specifications, the time and effort required to create the specifications, the competitive advantage that these specifications afforded the plaintiff, or the uniqueness of the specifications compared to other distributors.
As to prices, the Tenth Circuit noted that “ s a general matter, confidential data regarding operating and pricing policies can qualify as trade secrets…. The plaintiff must prove that the pricing structure conferred a competitive advantage or economic benefit to the owner of the information. The court also described “potential proof” that pricing information was a trade secret. This included testimony that the plaintiff had compiled a history of pricing The court found that the plaintiff did not provide any of these details.[.]-[i]Moreover the plaintiff shared their prices with its customers and
Finally as to customer drawings the court found that the plaintiff did own the drawings which came from the customers and belonged to them and The court stated that “ this fact alone doesoms the DTSA claims, which require that the party filing the suit owns The opinion also emphasizes the importance for employers to take adequate steps to protect their trade secret information. Employers are encouraged consult with counsel in order to evaluate the strength and effectiveness of their trade secret protection program.
