Articles Posted in Trade Secrets

Trade secret misappropriation claims are commonly filed in business litigation by employers against former employees. An employee is precluded from using for his or her own advantage, and to the detriment of a former employer, any trade secrets obtained in the course of prior employment. East v. Aqua Gaming, Inc., 805 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Where an employee acquires, during the course of his or her employment, a special technique or process developed by his or her employer, the employer is under a duty, even in the absence of an express contractual provision, not to disclose such skills, techniques, or processes for the employee’s own benefit or another’s benefit to the detriment of the former employer. Premier Lab Supply, Inc. v. Chemplex Industries, Inc., 10 So. 3d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Peter Mavrick is a Miami business litigation attorney, and represents clients in business litigation in Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton, and Palm Beach. The Mavrick Law Firm represents businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

In cases where there is no restrictive covenant between an employer and its employees, employers can sometimes prohibit former employees from disclosing confidential information under the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“FUTSA”). The lack of a confidentiality agreement does not necessarily defeat an employer’s argument that particular information is trade secret. Premier Lab Supply, Inc. v. Chemplex Industries, Inc., 10 So. 3d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). FUTSA mirrors the federal Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which also prohibits misappropriation of trade secrets and provides certain remedies. To obtain relief under FUTSA, the employer must prove: “(1) that it possessed a trade secret and took reasonable steps to protect its secrecy; and (2) the trade secret was misappropriated, either by one who knew or had reason to know the trade secret was improperly obtained or who used improper means to obtain it.” Mapei Corp. v. J.M. Field Marketing, Inc., 295 So. 3d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

Under FUTSA, “trade secret” is defined as “information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that: (a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” § 688.002, Fla. Stat. To be a trade secret under FUTSA, the information sought to be protected must be secret, and information that is generally known, or is necessarily disclosed upon use by a third party, cannot qualify as a trade secret. In re Maxxim Med. Group, Inc., 434 B.R. 660 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2010).

A prevalent issue arising in business litigation throughout Florida is whether the customer list of a business or employer is a protected trade secret under Fl as a trade secret Florida’s Uniform Trade Secret Act (FUTSA). Trade secrets are broadly defined under FUTSA and include information that “derive[s] economic value from not being readily ascertainable by others and must be the subject of reasonable efforts to protect its secrecy.” Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Foods Co., Inc., 136 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (S.D. Fla. 2001). Florida law considers a business’s customer lists and the information contained therein to be trade secrets subject to protection. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. v. Dull, No. 09-80113, 2009 WL 3180498 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2009). Peter Mavrick is a Fort Lauderdale business litigation attorney, and represents clients in business litigation in Miami, Boca Raton, and Palm Beach. The Mavrick Law Firm represents businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

FUTSA provides that “a complainant is entitled to recover damages for misappropriation.” Fla. Stat. § 688.004(1). In turn, “misappropriation” is defined as either the “(a) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means, or (b) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another . . .” Fla. Stat. § 688.002(2) (emphasis added). Thus, a plain reading of the statute makes clear that the wrongful acquisition of a trade secret, even without its actual use, constitutes a violation of FUTSA. See H2Ocean v. Schmitt, 2006 WL 1835974 (N.D. Fla. June 30, 2006). A trade secret is misappropriated if it is either acquired via improper means, or if it is disclosed or used by someone without proper consent.

FUTSA permits injunctive relief to redress any actual or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets. Se. Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Brody, 2008 WL 4613046 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2008). Florida law protects customer lists from misappropriation through injunctive relief. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Silcox, No. 01- 8800, 2001 WL 1200656 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2001). To prove a violation of FUTSA, a plaintiff must show that it: (1) possessed secret information and took reasonable steps to protect its secrecy and (2) the secret it possessed was misappropriated, either by one who knew or had reason to know that the secret was improperly obtained or by one who used improper means to obtain it. Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Foods Co., Inc., 136 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (S.D. Fla. 2001). Florida courts have held that “documents containing strategic marketing plans and pricing information have been held to constitute trade secrets under Florida law.” VAES Aero Servs. v. Arroyo, 860 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2012).

In business litigation, claims for trade secret misappropriation often arise under Florida’s Uniform Trade Secret Act (“FUTSA”) or the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”). For liability to attach under the DTSA and FUTSA, the information must be the fruit of wrongful acquisition, or misappropriation. The DTSA defines “misappropriation” to include “acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means” or “disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent” in specified circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 1839(5). “Improper means” under the DTSA includes “theft, bribery, misrepresentation, [and] breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy,” but excludes “reverse engineering, independent derivation, or any other lawful means of acquisition.” Peter Mavrick is a Miami business litigation attorney, and represents clients in business litigation in Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton, and Palm Beach. The Mavrick Law Firm represents businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

Florida courts routinely find that trade secrets are acquired through improper means when a business’ employee copies or extracts electronic information before their employment ends. For example, in Pharmerica, Inc. v. Arledge, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the defendant “misappropriated those trade secrets by duplicating and copying them and/or sending them to his home computer or personal email account and deleting them from the [plaintiff’s] computers.” 2007 WL 865510 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2007). Pharmerica considered the fact that the defendant “copied almost all of his electronic files from his work computer” just two days before he resigned from his position with his former employer. The trade secrets and proprietary information involved the former employer’s distribution and operational plans, quality control programs, and—most importantly—the former employer’s pricing details for major corporate clients that represented at one-third of the company’s total revenues.

Under the DTSA, federal courts across the United States have held that misappropriation by acquisition via download or password protected database requires evidence that an employee took affirmative action to ensure they retained access to the information after he or she was terminated, such as copying the information to his or her hard drive. For example, in Samick Music Corp. v. Gordon, the Court held it was reasonable to suspect that defendants obtained the customer’s information from the former employer’s database through improper means because: (a) many of the purchases were made by individuals who had previously purchased products from the former employer, and (b) the plaintiff identified two instances after the employee’s termination where defendants contacted former customers to sell them purported former employer’s replacement parts.  The district court found that Plaintiff had demonstrated a likelihood of success on its DTSA and CUTSA trade secret misappropriation claims. 2020 WL 3210613 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2020).