As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise:
(a) “Improper means” includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means, including searching through trash.
(b) “Misappropriation” means: (1) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (2) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who (A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (B) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was (i) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; (ii) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use, including but not limited to disclosures made under section 1-210, sections 31-40j to 31-40p, inclusive, or subsection (c) of section 12-62; or (iii) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (C) before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
(c) “Person” means a natural person, corporation, limited liability company, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1-210, 31-40j to 31-40p, inclusive, and subsection (c) of section 12-62, “trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, drawing, cost data or customer list that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (2) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
(P.A. 83-344, S. 2; P.A. 95-79, S. 134, 189; 95-283, S. 64, 68; P.A. 97-110.)
History: P.A. 95-79 redefined “person” to include a limited liability company, effective May 31, 1995; P.A. 95-283 made technical change to replace reference to Sec. 12-62(b) with Sec. 12-62(c), effective July 6, 1995; P.A. 97-110 amended Subsec. (a) by adding “including searching through trash”.
Defendant's knowledge of the trade secret is an element of misappropriation claim under Subsec. (b)(2)(B)(iii) and defendant cannot “use” the trade secret for purposes of the statute if defendant does not have knowledge of the trade secret itself. 349 C. 513.
Subsec. (d):
Plaintiffs met secrecy requirement of Subdiv. (2); trial court did not err in finding that plaintiff had a trade secret as defined therein. 251 C. 59. Not all components of a secret business plan are necessarily trade secrets; plaintiff corporation's plan to use open chest surgery products to generate cash in a declining market was an element of plaintiff's future business strategy and defendant's disclosure of plan constituted misappropriation of trade secret; employee seeking to purchase a publicly traded corporation is not competing with the shareholder owners of trade secret and does not seek to deprive them of right to profit from their investments. 282 C. 209.
There were insufficient facts that certain exhibits were trade secrets that should be sealed, and certain other exhibits contained information already in the public domain and should not have been sealed. 120 CA 837.
Notes of Decisions
Elm City Cheese Co. v. Federico, 752 A.2d 1037 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 41× “2 The principal issue before us is whether the facts found establish a trade secret as that *61 term is defined in General Statutes § 35-51 (d). 3 We conclude that they do.”
Lydall, Inc. v. Ruschmeyer, 919 A.2d 421 (Conn. 2007).
· cites it 16× “With respect to what constitutes a trade secret, the meaning of that term is set forth at General Statutes § 35-51 (d). Under that statutory subsection, “trade secret” is defined as “information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique,…”
Smith v. Snyder, 839 A.2d 589 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 5× “General Statutes § 35-51 (d) defines a trade secret as “information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, drawing, cost data or customer list that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being…”
Bank of New York v. Bell, 993 A.2d 1022 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 8× “What constitutes a trade secret is set forth in General Statutes § 35-51 (d), which is part of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act, General Statutes § 35-50 et seq.”
BTS, USA, Inc. v. Exec. Perspectives, LLC, 142 A.3d 342 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 4× “"With respect to what constitutes a trade secret, the meaning of that term is set forth at General Statutes § 35-51(d). Under that statutory subsection, trade secret is defined as information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique,…”
News Am. Mktg. In-Store, Inc. v. Marquis, 22 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 357 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 2× “According to General Statutes § 35-51 (d), a trade secret is “information, including a formula, pattern, *540 compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, drawing, cost data or customer list that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not…”
Manere v. Collins, 200 Conn. App. 356 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 2× “But see General Statutes §§ 35-51 (b) and 35-53 (defining ‘‘[m]isappropriation’’ as cause of action specifically con- cerning misappropriation of trade secrets and providing for monetary damages under Uniform Trade Secrets Act, General Statutes § 35-50 et seq.”
On-Line Tech., Inc. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp., 253 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D. Conn. 2003).
· cites it 4× “As earlier discussed, trade secrets disclosed in a patent cease to “[d]erive[ ] independent economic value * * * from not being * * * readily ascertainable by proper means by * * * persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use,” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 35-51 (d),…”
On-Line Tech. v. Perkin Elmer Corp., 141 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D. Conn. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-51(d). Misappropriation is defined as: (1) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (2) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-51(b) — 3 cases
On-Line Tech., Inc. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp., 253 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D. Conn. 2003).
“As earlier discussed, trade secrets disclosed in a patent cease to “[d]erive[ ] independent economic value * * * from not being * * * readily ascertainable by proper means by * * * persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use,” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 35-51 (d),…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-51(b)(2)(B)(ii) — 1 case
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-51(d) — 7 cases
BTS, USA, Inc. v. Exec. Perspectives, LLC, 142 A.3d 342 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
“"With respect to what constitutes a trade secret, the meaning of that term is set forth at General Statutes § 35-51(d). Under that statutory subsection, trade secret is defined as information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique,…”
Bank of New York v. Bell, 993 A.2d 1022 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
“What constitutes a trade secret is set forth in General Statutes § 35-51 (d), which is part of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act, General Statutes § 35-50 et seq.”
On-Line Tech. v. Perkin Elmer Corp., 141 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D. Conn. 2001).
“” Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-51(d). Misappropriation is defined as: (1) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (2) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.