Identifying and Protecting Confidential Information
Today, the reality is that what qualifies as confidential information touches on virtually every single practice area. Confidential information is…
November 01, 2017 at 02:50 PM
3 minute read
Today, the reality is that what qualifies as confidential information touches on virtually every single practice area. Confidential information is the least tangible form of intellectual property because it is not registrable. But, lack of registrability makes it no less important or protectable. Confidential information may be a client's most valuable, yet unforeseen, asset because a business's value is becoming increasingly tied to its IP, which is also comprised of confidential information.
Terrell R. Miller, Partner at Gardere, recently sat down with Inside Counsel to discuss why the universe of what can qualify as confidential information is so vast and touches on essentially every practice area.
“Aside from the general concepts that confidential information comprises information of any nature or form that isn't generally known to the public, the scope of confidential information can be very broad since there are no real black and white definitions applicable,” he explained. “Often, the scope of confidential information is dictated by the parties to an agreement, and as such, is tailored to fit the needs of those particular parties.”
It's not uncommon for confidential information to encompass trade secrets, research and development, product designs, customer pricing histories and terms, customer preferences, manufacturing methods, formulas and technical know-how. Basically, confidential information can be any non-public information that a business deems valuable and would not want in the hands of its competitors. Given such broad scope, it's easy to see why confidential information can touch on essentially every practice area from product design, to manufacturing, to customer preferences, and ultimately to customer pricing.
By understanding how to identify confidential information, practitioners will be able to best maintain the confidentiality status by implementing safeguards and processes to maintain its non-public and confidential nature. For instance, limiting access to confidential information to only employees who need to know it and obtaining executed confidentiality agreements from persons who obtain access to the information for legitimate and defined business needs are two prime ways to protect confidential information and maintain its status.
According to Miller, the most common and most litigated examples, involve protection of trade secret information. For example, most people are aware of Coca-Cola's position that its soft drink formula is a trade secret. As a form of confidential information, if Coca-Cola allowed the formula to become public, assuming no nefarious conduct in the publication, its alleged competitive advantage over other soft drink makers would be lost, as the formula would become public knowledge and available for third parties to use in competition.
Since confidential information is so fluid as to its scope, and can be defined by contracting parties, it can be difficult in many instances to identify the many types of information that can fall within the scope of confidential information. Due to this inability to easily identify and define confidential information, it's often viewed as the least tangible form of IP, per Miller. He said, “Because if utilizing certain confidential information benefits your business, and that competitive advantage would be lost if the information were made public and available for use by your competitors, then its value in keeping it confidential may not be easy to quantify on the company's books, but its asset value is undeniable.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDigging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
5 minute readElaine Darr Brings Transformation and Value to DHL's Business
PepsiCo's Legal Team Champions Diversity, Wellness, and Mentorship to Shape a Thriving Corporate Culture
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250