How cited: Cluster 789005 · Go Syfert

Cluster 789005 (2005)

green · 27 citation events across 11 courts. Showing the 10 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200520152026
green United States v. Chung (2011)
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 521 (9th Cir.1993) (interpreting California’s UTSA and holding that the plaintiff had taken reasonable measures to maintain the secrecy of its customer database by “requiring] its employees to sign confidentiality agreements respecting its trade secrets”); Wyeth v. Natural Biologies, Inc., *826 395 F.3d 897, 899-900 (8th Cir.2005) (holding that, under Minnesota’s UTSA, the plaintiff had implemented reasonable measures by limiting a…
Rule Authority · E.D. Mo.
See Surgidev, 828 F.2d at 455 (“Only reasonable efforts, not all conceivable efforts, are required to protect the confidentiality of putative trade secrets.”) (citing Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”) § 1(4)(i)-(ii), 14 U.L.A. 542 (1980)); Wyeth, 395 F.3d at 900; AvidAir, 663 F.3d at 972–75.
Rule Authority · E.D. Mo.
Rather, all that is required is that the party take “reasonable” efforts to protect the confidentiality of putative trade secrets.15 See Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Tech., Inc., 828 F.2d 452 , 455 (8th Cir. 1987) (“Only reasonable efforts, not all conceivable efforts, are required to protect the confidentiality of putative trade secrets.”) (citing Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”) § 1(4)(i)-(ii), 14 U.L.A. 542 (1980)); Wyeth, 395 F.3d at 900; AvidAir, 663 F.3d at 972–75.
Rule Authority · W.D. Ky.
Tenn. Jan. 22, 2014) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 521 (a); Eubanks, 395 F.3d at 897; Lewis v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 141 F. App’x 420, 424 (6th Cir. 2005)).
Rule Authority · Minn. Ct. App.
The district court’s finding was “[b]ased on the lack of repeated losses of confidential information regarding the Brandon Process and Wyeth’s use of physical security, limited access to confidential information, employee training, document control, and oral and written understandings of confidentiality.” Id. at 900.
Rule Authority · W.D. Mich.
Wyeth v. Natural Biologics, Inc., 395 F.3d 897, 902 (8th Cir.2005); Seatrax, 200 F.3d at 363 .
Cited · 8th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Wyeth, 395 F.3d at 900 (“ ‘The existence of a trade secret is not negated merely because an employee or other person has acquired the trade secret without express or specific notice that it is a trade secret if, under all the circumstances, the employee or other person knows or has reason to know that the owner intends or expects the secrecy of the type of information comprising the trade secret to be maintained.’ ” (quoting Minn.Stat. § 325C.01, subd. 5)).
Cited · 8th Cir. · signal: see
See Wyeth v. Natural Biologics, Inc., 395 F.3d 897, 902 (8th Cir. 2005).
Cited · 8th Cir. · signal: see
See Wyeth v. Natural Biologies, Inc., 395 F.3d 897 , 902 (8th Cir. 2005).
Cited · Iowa Ct. App. · signal: see
See Wyeth v. Natural Biologics, Inc., 395 F.3d 897, 900 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating “[a]bsolute secrecy is not required”).6 In reaching this conclusion, we acknowledge the existence of adverse authority.
stating “[a]bsolute secrecy is not required”