Every company has trade secrets — from customer lists and product strategies to formulas and processes —that make it distinct, add value and contribute to its success. Trade secrets represent the proverbial “secret sauce” and must be kept confidential through a series of steps in order to protect their enforceability in court.
Saul Ewing intellectual property attorneys advise companies on proactively protecting their trade secrets and litigate trade secrets claims in court, including in the following areas:
- Helping to establish a trade secret asset management methodology that includes four key areas — existence, ownership, notice and access — to help prove a trade secret in court, if necessary
- Advising on steps to secure a company’s trade secret information, including policies, procedures, and records; security and confidentiality management; risk assessment; third-party management; training; and monitoring
- Reviewing agreements and restrictions on incoming employees and drafting restrictive covenant agreements that help protect trade secrets
- Representing clients in cases involving trade secret misappropriation, confidential and proprietary information, anti-competitive practices, corporate theft and espionage, and unfair and deceptive trade practices in state and federal courts
For a selection of our trade secret representations, click here.
- A start-up company that makes electronic slot machines in the favorable settlement of intellectual property allegations that include infringing on dozens of its trademarks, copying its trade dress, and misappropriating trade secrets and confidential information, which were made by another gaming company where some employees of the start-up company previously worked. The favorable settlement was reached days before trial.
- An Asian manufacturer in related trademark, licensing, theft of trade secrets and patent matters before federal and state courts in New York and in International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) arbitration.
- A life sciences company in an important victory in an ongoing trade secret non-compete case over the concealment of the fact for nearly two years that the critical noncompete agreement on which its lawsuit was based was a made-for-litigation document. Following a two-day bench trial, the district court found that the conduct of both the plaintiff and its counsel violated Rule 11 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure by engaging in “reprehensible misconduct.” In addition to allowing the defendants to assert a counterclaim for abuse of process, the judge ultimately awarded our client and a co-defendant monetary sanctions.
- A financial advisory firm focused on intellectual property and patents in investigating and conducting trade secret analysis.
- A biodiesel fuel production technology company in an unfair competition and theft of trade secrets case.
- A marketing media company in a trade secret dispute against the company.
- A manufacturer in the defense industry about protection of its trade secrets, which are the subject of contracts with the United States and approved foreign governments.