Use of Misappropriated Trade Secret Not Required For a Trade Secrets Act Violation
If an employee misappropriates their current or former employer’s proprietary information, and discloses such information to its new employer and/or any other unauthorized person(s), that is enough to establish a violation under the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“VUTSA”) so says the Virginia Supreme Court. There is no requirement under the Act that the employee or new employer actually use the misappropriated information to compete with the former employer.
In the case of Geographic Services, Inc. v. Collelo, et al. (2012), the Virginia Supreme Court held that once an employer establishes the existence of a trade secret, all that they are then required to show is that the trade secret was misappropriated as that term is defined under the Trade Secrets Act. The entity from which the trade secret was misappropriated does not have to show that defendants used the trade secret in order to establish a claim under the VUTSA and recover damages. Disclosure of the trade secret is sufficient where it can be shown that the new employer and/or person to whom the trade secret was disclosed knew, or had reason to know, that the trade secret was acquired by improper means. In such cases, where the plaintiff cannot readily prove measurable damages, then the VUTSA provides that the court can impose a reasonable royalty upon the wrongdoers for the unauthorized disclosure of the trade secret.
This decision by Virginia’s highest court provides a cautionary note for Virginia employers: if you know, or should have known, that an employee has obtained proprietary information from its prior employer without its knowledge, you could be on the hook for damages if the employee discloses the information to your company – even if your company never uses the information. The disclosure, in and of itself, will be enough to expose companies to monetary damages. Conversely, companies in which an employee has taken proprietary information can seek legal redress and possibly obtain damages even if the employee and its new company did not use the information.
© Copyright, PCT Law Group 2012, all rights reserved.
Tips for Saving Money on Initial Patent and Trademark Services
It is clear that the economic downturn has lessened the appetite for companies to spend money on anything not perceived as a “necessary business expense.” The importance of intellectual property (IP) rights in a 21st century, knowledge economy, however, dictates that individual inventors and small- and medium-sized businesses (“SMBs”) find capital to file for patents and trademarks relating to their truly innovative products and services.
The above then begs the question: How can SMBs save money in hiring and engaging IP legal counsel? Well, the answer to this question contains many variables related to the specific IP attorney being hired. Such variables include the region where the IP attorney works, the size of law firm in which they practice, their level of experience, the complexity of the IP involved, etc.
The above variables aside, there is one constant in the price equation that I consistently advise SMBs to pay attention to – the preparation of their disclosure materials BEFORE meeting with any newly-engaged IP counsel. That is, SMBs (and individual entrepreneurs) can directly and significantly control their IP legal cost through careful preparation of their disclosure materials. I have seen $5000 legal bills turned into $15000 legal bills through the needless “back and forth” between an IP attorney who is “on the clock” and a client who has prematurely engaged such IP attorney. So, what do I mean by disclosure materials and how should an SMB prepare them? Well, I answer in two parts:
With respect to an invention needing a patent application, disclosure materials means an SMB gathering and organizing all relevant papers, sketches, drawings, notes, software code, formulations, etc. that provide the IP attorney with the following information:
- Title of the invention
- The full legal names, addresses and citizenship of all inventors
- The full name, address and state of incorporation of the company who will own the patent (if any)
- A description of the problem solved by the invention
- A description of how long the problem has been around and how have others tried to solve the problem
- A description of how the invention solves the problem differently than past solutions or attempted solutions
- System diagrams showing all hardware/software components of the invention
- Flowcharts illustrating the steps of the invention
- A list any known websites, publications, patents, products, services, etc. that are relevant to the subject matter of the invention
- A description of how the invention relates to the launch of a new product or service
- Dates the invention was (or will be): first conceived; implemented as a pilot or otherwise used in the public domain; reduced to actual practice; the subject of a publication or public disclosure; sold or offered for sale; and/or internally exploited
With respect to a mark or logo needing a trademark application, disclosure materials means an SMB gathering and organizing the following information to provide to the IP attorney:
- A description of the mark
- The full name, address and state of incorporation of the entity who will own the trademark
- A description of all the types of products and/or services with which the mark is actually used or will be used
- Date of any first sale of goods bearing the mark in interstate commerce
- Copies of any specimens showing the mark as it is currently (or will be) used on or in connection with the goods or services
- A description of how the mark is actually used or intended to be used
A prepared and organized client is one who receives efficient IP legal services and a reasonable legal bill from their IP attorney, and is consequently glad to pay that reasonable bill!
Non-Compete Ruled Unenforceable by Virginia Circuit Court
For several years now, many practitioners that advise and/or draft non-competes for their business clients have stopped including language in non-compete provisions which prohibit a former employee from being an “owner” or “shareholder” in a competing business. Virginia Courts have routinely held that including language which prohibits a former employee from essentially owning stock in a competing business was overbroad and not necessary to protect an employer’s legitimate business interest. Therefore, such non-competes have regularly been invalidated.
Consistent with prior court opinions, a Virginia Beach Circuit Court recently invalidated a non-compete provision which prohibited a former employee from, inter alia, being an owner or shareholder in a competing business. The case, Patient First Richmond Medical Group, LLC v. Ameanthea Rica Blanco (Virginia Beach Circuit Court, Feb. 15, 2011), involved Defendant Blanco, a family nurse practitioner who was employed by Plaintiff Patient First. According to the allegations in the case, Blanco, while still working at Patient First, began formation of a competing healthcare practice which was to provide primary and urgent care treatment at reasonable or fixed fees during extended weekday and weekend hours without the need for an appointment.
Blanco also solicited two doctors from Patient First to come work with her at the new medical practice. After she resigned her position with Patient First, Blanco opened up the competing business within seven miles of her former place of employment. Patient First brought suit alleging that Blanco violated her employment agreement which contained non-competition and non-solicitation provisions.
The covenant not to compete prohibited Blanco from performing medical services of the type performed for Patient First (though the term “medical services” was not defined) for two years after her employment and within a seven-mile radius as an “agent, officer, director, member, partner, shareholder, independent contractor, owner, or employee” of the competing business. The Court found that the non-compete provision was overbroad because its provisions went beyond occupations and businesses that were in competition with Patient First. The Court reasoned that by barring Blanco from being a shareholder in a competing business, she would be barred from merely owning stock in a publically traded company, even if she were not providing medical services for the company and thus not competing with Patient First.
The Court also held that a number of the terms in the provision were not defined and left too much uncertainty as to which activities of the former employee would, or would not, be in violation of the covenant. Therefore, an employee would essentially have to guess at which conduct was prohibited. The Court held that in such cases, the non-compete was unenforceable as offending sound public policy, and sustained Blanco’s demurrer without leave for Patient First to amend.
Virginia State Court: Contractor Can Pursue Assets of Subcontractor's Owner
After a less-than-satisfactory boiler improvement job done by a subcontractor, a Henrico County Circuit Court judge allowed the prime contractor to pierce the corporate veil and reach the personal assets of the subcontractor’s owner for damages related to this job. In this case, the Court found evidence that the sole shareholder of the subcontractor failed to uphold corporate formalities such as annual meetings and the maintenance of separate financial books for the company. Moreover, the subcontractor arranged for the corporation to enter into a contract while grossly undercapitalized. The finding resulted in a judgment worth $137,454 against the shareholder personally.
In Virginia, courts regard veil-piercing as an extraordinary remedy. Generally, each corporation is a separate legal entity with its own debts/liabilities and assets. However, under Virginia law, a court may pierce the corporate veil to find that an individual owner is the alter ego of a corporation where it finds (1) a unity of interest and ownership between the individual and the corporation, and (2) that the individual used the corporation to evade a personal obligation, to perpetrate fraud or a crime, to commit an injustice, or to gain an unfair advantage.
When deciding whether to pierce the corporate veil, courts consider a variety of factors, including the intermingling of assets of the corporation and of the shareholder; the absence or inaccuracy of company records; and significant undercapitalization of the business entity. Virginia businesses must be cognizant of such corporate formalities and protocols in order to protect the personal assets of owners from potential liability.
Stay Connected with H. Scott Johnson Jr.
Stay Connected with Angela H. France
Stay Connected with Malik Cutlar