Protecting Your Trade Secret and Confidential Information
In today's world of high-paced technology, companies face greater challenges than ever in protecting their confidential and proprietary information. Employees are more mobile than ever—and so is every employer's sensitive information.
April 27, 2015 at 08:00 PM
9 minute read
In today's world of high-paced technology, companies face greater challenges than ever in protecting their confidential and proprietary information. Employees are more mobile than ever—and so is every employer's sensitive information.
Companies expend substantial time and resources to develop their products, services and marketing methods, as well as to cultivate customer relationships. Because a company has a legitimate interest in protecting those investments, there are steps it must take to maintain the secrecy of that information. When an employee wrongfully acquires, uses or discloses an employer's confidential information, it can cause significant damage to the company's competitive advantage. Although an employer may respond with legal action, such recourse can be costly, time-consuming, and distracting to the company's day-to-day business. Thus, employers should focus on steps to secure their sensitive information to prevent its compromise.
This article discusses the differences between confidential and trade secret information and outlines best practices for safeguarding such information to avoid the necessity of resorting to litigation remedies.
Trade Secrets Versus Other Confidential Information
As a threshold issue, employers should understand that not all information they deem “confidential” amounts to a trade secret. This distinction matters because trade secrets are entitled to heightened legal protections and remedies, outlined below. Confidential information that does not rise to the level of a trade secret still can enjoy legal protection, but only if an employer takes adequate steps to maintain its secrecy.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 All'Taking the Best' of Both Firms, Ballard Spahr and Lane Powell Officially Merge
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Perkins Coie Hires Anthony Shannon as Chief People Officer
- 2Who Is Nicholas J. Ganjei? His Rise to Top Lawyer
- 3Delaware Supreme Court Names Civil Litigator to Serve as New Chief Disciplinary Counsel
- 4Inside Track: Why Relentless Self-Promoters Need Not Apply for GC Posts
- 5Fresh lawsuit hits Oregon city at the heart of Supreme Court ruling on homeless encampments
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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