The Big Oops: Planning for Inadvertent Disclosures of Trade Secrets
Fortunately, inadvertent disclosure of a trade secret does not mean that all is lost, provided that prompt and definitive action is taken.
April 03, 2019 at 12:29 PM
5 minute read
According to estimates, in 2018 the average business user sent and received 140 emails per day, a figure that is projected to grow significantly in coming years. On top of that, more business e-mail is done on mobile devices, which unfortunately means less attention to detail. As a result, we have seen increased incidence of company employees inadvertently sending sensitive corporate information to unintended recipients. And the risk emanates not only from your company's employees, but also the employees of any vendors who have access to your trade secrets. Fortunately, inadvertent disclosure of a trade secret does not mean that all is lost, provided that prompt and definitive action is taken.
Putting the Horse Back in the Barn
When it comes to the inadvertent disclosure of trade secrets, it can be possible to “put the horse back in the barn,” but notice of the disclosure must be given to the unintended recipient as soon as possible. Both the Uniform Trade Secret Act and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act impose liability on those who use or disclose a trade secret with actual or constructive knowledge that it was “acquired by accident or mistake,” provided that such knowledge arose “before a material change of … position” by that person. Put another way, if the unintended recipient of a trade secret uses or discloses it without actual or constructive knowledge, no liability will exist. As a result, it is imperative that notice be given to the recipient promptly after learning of the inadvertent disclosure. Doing so will both 1) impose liability on the inadvertent recipient if they make use of disclosure, and 2) increase the odds that trade secret status is not lost. See e.g. Ideal Aerosmith, Inc. v. Acutronic USA, Inc., 2007 WL 4394447 at *8 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 13, 2007) (permitting trade secret claim to proceed against defendant that acquired trade secrets by mistake); Fireworks Spectacular, Inc. v. Premier Pyrotechnics, Inc., 107 F. Supp. 2d 1307, 1310–11 (D. Kan. 2000) (holding that trade secret status was not lost where recipients of inadvertent disclosure were given prompt notice).
Every state except New York and New Jersey has adopted language identical or similar to the “accident or mistake” language of the UTSA. New York lacks a trade secret statute altogether and instead relies on common law; as a result, courts applying New York law have been less forgiving to inadvertent disclosures. See e.g. Defiance Button Mach. Co. v. C & C Metal Prod. Corp., 759 F.2d 1053, 1063 (2d Cir. 1985) (“upon disclosure, even if inadvertent or accidental, the information ceases to be a trade secret and will no longer be protected”). New Jersey adopted the UTSA in 2011 but specifically rejected the “accident or mistake” language. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:15-2. But even in matters where the laws of New York or New Jersey may apply, counsel can rely upon the DTSA as long as the trade secret is “related to a product or service used in or intended for us in interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 1832(a).
In addition to giving the recipient notice, the recipient should also be asked to identify:
- Every instance of further dissemination of the trade secret beyond the original communication (i.e., who else received the e-mail and when);
- Every location where the trade secret may be stored (i.e., computers, mobile devices, servers); and
- All other copies of it that may have been made.
Once these disclosures are made, the recipient should also be asked to certify return or destruction of the trade secret, and any individuals who came into possession of it should certify that they are no longer in such possession and that they further agree not to use or disclose any information embodied within the trade secret. However, before any agreed-upon destruction occurs, the trade secret owner should obtain copies of all identified copies and disseminations of the trade secret so that they may be preserved in the event of subsequent litigation. If a party that inadvertently receives a trade secret is unwilling to take these steps, the broad injunctive relief provisions of both the UTSA and the DTSA should be taken advantage of.
Re-examining Controls
An inadvertent disclosure raises a bigger risk than simply what the recipient may do with the trade secret: the risk that the trade secret loses its status as a trade secret altogether. By definition, information is only entitled to trade secret protection if it is “the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” An inadvertent disclosure could be symptomatic of a failure to take such reasonable efforts. As a result, all companies—but especially those that suffer an inadvertent disclosure—should closely examine their controls. Among other protections, trade secrets should be identified and catalogued by location and individuals with access, which should be limited to those whose duties actually require access. Files containing trade secret information should be password protected, as should any machines used to access them. And employees should be instructed not to transmit passwords in any communications that also transmit trade secrets.
Stephen M. Vaughn is a partner in the Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation Groups of Morris, Manning & Martin LLP's Atlanta office.
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 AllBusiness Breakups: Why Business and Commercial Cases Are Well-Suited to Mediation
5 minute readIn RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
Trending Stories
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