in Bramshill Investment company (Bramshill Investments, LLC) V. ASHLEY．Pullen (Ashley Pullen) In the case, Defendant Pullen asked the District Court of New Jersey to dismiss the plaintiff Bramshill A lawsuit against him for alleged abuse of trade secrets.

Court of justice 2020 years 8 month 10 Japan reviewed the defendant's motion and denied most of it. Court order, Plaintiff sues defendant for violation of New Jersey "Trade secret protection act" (DTSA) and "Trade secret law" (NJTSA) And sufficient grounds for breach of contract and non-performance of duty of loyalty. The facts are at work Bramshill before, The defendant runs his own consulting business SparHawk, Assist alternative asset managers to raise funds.

As an alternative asset management company (Specializing in the exploration of speculative opportunities) the Bramshill When hiring the defendant, Defendant denied carrying on any competitive business and assured Plaintiff that she had ceased SparHawk All business of. In addition to signing a non-compete agreement, Defendants also agreed to abide by Plaintiff's policies regarding the protection of proprietary and confidential information.

Although the defendant worked for the plaintiff, But the plaintiff found out that the defendant had sent his client list, Marketing list, Investor list and contact list sent to it SparHawk E-mail address. It is important that, When the plaintiff checked social media SparHawk Still be "active" . Therefore, The plaintiff sued the defendant for violation DTSA, NJTSA, "New Jersey Computer Related Crimes Act" (NJCROA) , Breach of contract law, Failure to perform a duty of loyalty is not justifiable enrichment. The defendant petitioned the court to dismiss the action. The court ruled on the motion to dismiss, Support regarding the defendant's violation DTSA and NJTSA, Charges of breach of contract and breach of duty of loyalty, It also dismissed the plaintiff's other causes of action.

On plaintiff's basis DTSA and NJTSA Claim made, The defendant made a complaint that it was sent to SparHawk There is no objection to the exclusivity and confidentiality of the email files. But the defendant said he did not misuse the information, Did not improperly obtain or use information to compete with the plaintiff. The court disagreed with the defendant, Find that the plaintiff has basis "use" Theoretical sum "Improper acquisition" The theory proves that the defendant committed the abuse.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated "Employment contract" Confidentiality and non-disclosure clauses in. The court found that the plaintiff had strong grounds for this action, In addition, Although plaintiff does not allege that defendant sent proprietary and confidential information to SparHawk Mailboxes are in direct competition, But the court held that the defendant had failed in his duty of loyalty. Bottom line even if there is no direct competition, But disclosing proprietary or confidential information to competitors or to employees who handle such information themselves may also violate the law.

Companies that find employees misusing trade secrets should act quickly, To enforce confidentiality policy and protection DTSA and NJTSA Protected trade secrets. otherwise, A court would consider such information no longer a trade secret.

(Compiled from www. jdsupra. com)

Reprinted from China Intellectual Property Network   translation: Rason group　proofread: Wang Dan

disclaimer: This website reprint articles are from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.