PhoneDog is a company that provides messages via mobile phones and provides information about them to consumers during comparative shopping. The company had employed Noah Kravitz to write online comments of phone products with a variety of online media; Such a medium was Twitter, where Kravtiz`s grip was “@PhoneDog_Noah.” However, after leaving the company, Kravitz refused to give up using the Twitter account, changing the handle to “@noahkravitz” and installing a new password. The question of whether an outgoing employee can take away his Twitter followers and what possible business secrets are related to them is a first impression. As part of the appeal procedure, the complainants stated that the AFS had provided the information to the Authority (and Orbital) without a formal agreement of confidentiality or confidentiality and that the Authority, as a public body, was subject to a public law on open recordings. The complainants stressed that the absence of a treaty confidentiality or confidentiality agreement is of particular importance, since the information provided to the Authority is theoretically disclosed. The third circle agreed with the District Court that the reality of information processing was more important than the theoretical challenges posed by the complainants. Even if the Authority has not made a contractual commitment to it, it is obliged to respect the confidentiality of the information and has behaved in a manner consistent with that belief. Furthermore, the applicant did not indicate that the Authority had already been the subject of a request for information on the disputed trade secrets. As we found in our mid-year review 2019, our year of retrospective in 2018 and a recent article in Law360, the DTSA`s request that a trade secret owner take “reasonable steps” to protect his or her information was the disadvantage for many complainants. Both the DTSA and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) (adopted in any form by 49 states) require a trade secret holder to take appropriate measures to protect their data.
A study presented by Winston from 2009 to 2018 showed that the courts rejected claims in 11% of disputed business secrets cases because the complainant company did not take appropriate measures to protect the stolen information, as is necessary to meet the definition of a “trade secret”. In 2019, many courts continued this alarming trend and rejected requests for theft of trade secrets and/or omission because victims` companies did not take “reasonable steps” to protect their trade secrets. For example, the regional court found that Huber and INSYSMA are held liable for the embezzlement of AFS business secrets under the Business Secrecy Act. At the end of a six-day trial, the regional court found that L-H, Vann and Aufiero were held jointly liable for the embezzlement of trade secrets and that L-H, Huber and Vann were responsible for violating the loyalty obligation or assisting the breach of this offence. It also awarded compensation of $1,096,009, $1,000,000 against Huber and $1,000,000 in additional damages against L-H, Huber and Vann.