As used in the Trade Secrets Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) Improper means shall mean theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means;
(2) Misappropriation shall mean:
(a) 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
(b) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who:
(i) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret;
(ii) At the time of the disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his or her knowledge of the trade secret was:
(A) Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;
(B) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(C) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(iii) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that the information was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake;
(3) Person shall mean a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity; and
(4) Trade secret shall mean information, including, but not limited to, a drawing, formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, code, or process that:
(a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being known to, and not being ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
(b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Notes of Decisions
Infogroup, Inc. v. DatabaseLLC, 95 F. Supp. 3d 1170 (D. Neb. 2015).
· cites it 8× “To prevail under the Trade Secrets Act, Info-group would need to prove, among other things, the existence of a trade secret and DatabaseUSA’s misappropriation of it.”
Home Pride Foods, Inc. v. Johnson, 634 N.W.2d 774 (Neb. 2001).
· cites it 3× “We agree and hold that a customer list can be included in the definition of a trade secret under § 87-502. The question is whether the customer list rises to the level of a trade secret in this case.”
ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, 296 Neb. 818 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 2× “So, at the deposition, counsel for BHMI 3 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-502 (4)(a) (Reissue 2014) (defining “[t]rade secret” as information that “[d]erives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being known to .”
VKGS v. Planet Bingo, 309 Neb. 950 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 2× “Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which enforces confidentiality agreements only when the information sought to be protected is actually confidential and reasonable efforts were made to keep it confidential.”
West Plains, L.L.C. v. Retzlaff Grain Co., 927 F. Supp. 2d 776 (D. Neb. 2013).
· cites it 4× “]” Neb. Rev.Stat. § 87-502(2)(b)(ii)(C). The customer contact, load, and pricing information CT Freight seeks to protect could fit within the definition of a trade secret under the NTSA.”
Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC, 970 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2020).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-502 (4). The DTSA uses a similar definition of trade secrets, identifying “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information .”
Richdale Dev. Co. v. McNeil Co., 508 N.W.2d 853 (Neb. 1993).
· cites it 2× “§ 87-502. Section 87-503 provides for injunctive relief, and § 87-504 allows damages under certain circumstances because of misappropriation under the terms of the Trade Secrets Act.”
Cy Wakeman, Inc. v. Nicole Price Consulting, LLC, 284 F. Supp. 3d 985 (D. Neb. 2018).
· cites it 2× “The alleged "trade secrets" at issue here are the customer relationships between Wakeman and certain clients who, according to Wakeman, want their relationship with Wakeman to remain confidential.”
Dick v. Koski Prof. Grp., 307 Neb. 599 (Neb. 2020).
“rference with an existing contract or business relationship or expectancy; (2) aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty; (3) malicious prosecution based on Bland’s commencement of NSBPA proceedings against KPG, allegedly without probable cause and with malice, “in an…”
Softchoice Corp. v. MacKenzie, 636 F. Supp. 2d 927 (D. Neb. 2009).
· cites it 2× “” Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 87-502(4). The elements necessary to establish a cause of action for misappropriation of a trade secret are (1) the existence of a trade secret or secret manufacturing process, (2) the value and importance of the trade secret to the employer in the conduct of…”
Burlington N. R.R. v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 703 F. Supp. 826 (D. Neb. 1988).
· cites it 3× “The proposed second amended complaint would add the Nebraska Trade Secrets Act, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 87-502 et seq.; a Civil Rights Act, 42 U.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-502(1) — 2 cases
Infogroup, Inc. v. DatabaseLLC, 95 F. Supp. 3d 1170 (D. Neb. 2015).
“To prevail under the Trade Secrets Act, Info-group would need to prove, among other things, the existence of a trade secret and DatabaseUSA’s misappropriation of it.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-502(2) — 3 cases
Infogroup, Inc. v. DatabaseLLC, 95 F. Supp. 3d 1170 (D. Neb. 2015).
“To prevail under the Trade Secrets Act, Info-group would need to prove, among other things, the existence of a trade secret and DatabaseUSA’s misappropriation of it.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-502(2)(b)(ii)(C) — 2 cases
West Plains, L.L.C. v. Retzlaff Grain Co., 927 F. Supp. 2d 776 (D. Neb. 2013).
“]” Neb. Rev.Stat. § 87-502(2)(b)(ii)(C). The customer contact, load, and pricing information CT Freight seeks to protect could fit within the definition of a trade secret under the NTSA.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-502(4) — 12 cases
Home Pride Foods, Inc. v. Johnson, 634 N.W.2d 774 (Neb. 2001).
“We agree and hold that a customer list can be included in the definition of a trade secret under § 87-502. The question is whether the customer list rises to the level of a trade secret in this case.”
Infogroup, Inc. v. DatabaseLLC, 95 F. Supp. 3d 1170 (D. Neb. 2015).
“To prevail under the Trade Secrets Act, Info-group would need to prove, among other things, the existence of a trade secret and DatabaseUSA’s misappropriation of it.”
Dick v. Koski Prof. Grp., 307 Neb. 599 (Neb. 2020).
“rference with an existing contract or business relationship or expectancy; (2) aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty; (3) malicious prosecution based on Bland’s commencement of NSBPA proceedings against KPG, allegedly without probable cause and with malice, “in an…”
Softchoice Corp. v. MacKenzie, 636 F. Supp. 2d 927 (D. Neb. 2009).
“” Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 87-502(4). The elements necessary to establish a cause of action for misappropriation of a trade secret are (1) the existence of a trade secret or secret manufacturing process, (2) the value and importance of the trade secret to the employer in the conduct of…”
West Plains, L.L.C. v. Retzlaff Grain Co., 927 F. Supp. 2d 776 (D. Neb. 2013).
“]” Neb. Rev.Stat. § 87-502(2)(b)(ii)(C). The customer contact, load, and pricing information CT Freight seeks to protect could fit within the definition of a trade secret under the NTSA.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-502(4)(a) — 2 cases
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.