Trade Secrets and Noncompete Blog : Non-Compete Lawyer & Attorney : Epstein Becker Green Law Firm : Trade Secrets & Confidentiality Agreements

The New York State Supreme Court recently shot down a request to enjoin two former salesmen and their new employer from tortiously interfering with a real estate investment firm’s business, from interfering or contacting its customers or using or exploiting its trade secrets. See Koenigsberg v. Silber Investment Properties Ltd., Index No. 20127/08 (Nassau County March 17, 2009). The two former salesmen claimed that they were not actual employees of the real estate investment firm, but independent contractors, that they did not sign non-compete contracts and that the alleged client lists were their personal property. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the former sales representatives' solicitation of clients based on its contention they misappropriated trade secrets (i.e., the client lists). In disagreeing with the plaintiff, the Court referred to plaintiff's prior course of conduct with other former sales representatives. Specifically, the Court pointed out that there was no indication that the plaintiff had prohibited other sales representatives from soliciting clients after they left, had required other sales representatives to sign non-solicitation agreements, or had prevented other sales representatives from keeping their own lists of customers. The Court stated "[i]f AIP did not require that its salespeople guard the secrecy of the customer list during their service with AIP or attempt to prevent the AIP salesmen from using the information in the list once they left AIP's service, this is an indication that the customer list was not a 'trade secret.'" The Court further reasoned that the plaintiff failed to set forth "what 'considerable efforts' were expended in developing the purported secrets." Nor did the plaintiff establish how the client list was created.

The case serves as a reminder to employers to take appropriate and reasonable steps to protect their confidential information and trade secrets. Such steps may include limiting access to the confidential information, requiring persons with access to such information to execute written confidentiality and/or non-solicitation agreements, and requiring departing employees to return company property and documents.

Many New York attorneys, when seeking a preliminary injunction against a party that has misappropriated their clients’ trade secrets, will argue that a presumption of irreparable harm to their clients automatically arises upon the determination that a trade secret has been misappropriated, citing Ivy Mar Co. v. C.R. Seasons, Ltd., 907 F. Supp. 2d 547, 567 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). A recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, however, holds that misappropriation of trade secrets does not automatically lead to irreparable harm. The aggrieved party only faces irreparable harm if the misappropriator will disseminate the secrets to a wider audience or otherwise irreparably impair the value of the secrets.

In Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corporation, __ F.3d __, 2009 WL 636020 (2d Cir. March 9, 2009), Wabtec had manufactured subway brakes under a contract with Faiveley and its predecessor from 1993 through 2005. Faiveley alleges that after expiration of the contract, Wabtec impermissibly continued to use Faiveley’s proprietary information (including various technical specifications, designs, plans, and patents) to produce subway brakes for the New York City Transit Authority. The District Court granted an preliminary injunction enjoining Wabtec from disclosing Faiveley’s proprietary information to the Transit Authority.

On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated the injunction because Faiveley had not demonstrated that it faced irreparable injury. Although the Second Circuit agreed that Wabtec had misappropriated trade secrets, it held that misappropriation alone does not give rise to a presumption of irreparable harm, noting:

Where a misappropriator seeks only to use those secrets - without further dissemination or irreparable impairment of value - in pursuit of profit, no such presumption is warranted because an award of damages will often provide a complete remedy for such an injury. Indeed, once a trade secret is misappropriated, the misappropriator will often have the same incentive as the originator to maintain the confidentiality of the secret in order to profit from the proprietary knowledge.

The Court went on to note in dicta that even where irreparable injury has been shown, only a narrowly drawn preliminary injunction that protects the trade secret from further disclosure or use may be appropriate, and admonished courts in all cases to strive to avoid unnecessary burdens on lawful commercial activity.