The Laws governing trade secrets varies from state to state. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws drafted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act which has been adopted in every state except for Massachussets, New York, North Carolina and Texas. The last four states still use the definition layed out in the Restatement of Torts §757, Comment b(1939). The main page is intended to display the seminole cases for Trade Secrets law at the federal level. To find more relevant case law for Florida trade secret protection continue to the other tabs listed in the drop down menu under "Case Law."
Source: info.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com
Source: advance.lexis.com
Source: www.prweb.com
Source: charityhowto.com
Source: en.wikipedia.org
KEWANEE v. BICRON, 416 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1974)
"Ohio's law of trade secrets is not preempted by the patent laws of the United States," Id. at 474.
"the extension of trade secret protection to clearly patentable inventions does not conflict with the patent policy of disclosure." Id. at 491.
Universal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co., 322 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1944)
"... as a reward for inventions and to encourage their disclosure, the United States offers a seventeen-year monopoly to an inventor who refrains from keeping his invention a trade secret. But the quid pro quo is disclosure of a process or device in sufficient detail to enable one skilled in the art to practice the invention once the period of the monopoly has expired; and the same precision of disclosure is likewise essential to warn the industry concerned of the precise scope of the monopoly asserted." Id. at 484.
Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1987)
"...an employee has a fiduciary obligation to protect confidential information obtained during the course of his employment ... It is well established, as a general proposition, that a person who acquires special knowledge or information by virtue of a confidential or fiduciary relationship with another is not free to exploit that knowledge or information for his own personal benefit but must account to his principal for any profits derived therefrom." Id. at 27-28.
Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co., 440 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1979)
"Federal patent law does not pre-empt state contract law so as to preclude enforcement of the contract." Id. at 266.
Pitney-Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 517 F. Supp. 52 (S.D. Fla. 1981)
Here the 11th District followed the Supreme Courts decision stating that federal patent laws do not pre-empt state trade secret laws. Chief Justice Burger stated: "...in the case of trade secret law no reasonable risk of deterrence from patent application by those who can reasonably expect to be granted patents exists." Id. at 60.
Keystone Plastics, Inc. v. C & P Plastics, Inc., 340 F. Supp. 55 (S.D. Fla. 1972)
Here the court held that the alleged trade secrets were not entitled to protection because the plaintiff failed to show that the defendants actually used the information. the plaintiff had also published some of its claimed trade secrets thus denying themselves trade secret protection.
FL SUPREME COURT:
Source: unfspinnaker.com
Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1974)
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS OF FLORIDA
Source: www.flcourts.org
Arch Aluminum & Glass Co. v. Haney, 964 So. 2d 228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2007)
Unistar Corp. v. Child, 415 So. 2d 733 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3rd Dist. 1982)
Templeton v. Creative Loafing Tampa, Inc., 552 So. 2d 288 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2nd Dist. 1989)
Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So. 2d 486 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3rd Dist. 1986)
Lovell Farms v. Levy, 641 So. 2d 103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3rd Dist. 1994)
Mittenzwei v. Industrial Waste Serv., Inc., 618 So. 2d 328 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3rd Dist. 1993)
Tomasello, Inc. v. De Los Santos, 394 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1981)
Dyer v. Pioneer Concepts, 667 So. 2d 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2nd Dist. 1996)
