News & Resources

PCT Law Group Blog

Use of Misappropriated Trade Secret Not Required for a Trade Secrets Act Violation

Tuesday, January 31, 2012 by Team PCT Law Group

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.

Written by Malik Cutlar

(Numbers) and IP Licensing Agreements

Sunday, January 22, 2012 by Team PCT Law Group

During the course of my practice, I am continually amazed at the contents of IP and technology-related agreements I receive from opposing counsel who happen to be “good” lawyers at “good” firms. While not getting into all the “strange,” “sloppy,” or downright “wrong” legal verbiage I see, I do have one thing that has been bothering me lately. What’s that, you ask? Well, it’s the use of numbers and those silly parentheticals.

I am sure all of you have seen language in agreements such as:

  • “In consideration of the license rights granted herein by Licensor to Licensee, Licensee shall pay to Licensee a one time, up-front, non-refundable license fee of one million United States dollars (US$2,000,000.00).”
  • “In consideration of the license rights granted herein by Licensor to Licensee, Licensee shall pay a flat royalty based on two and one-half percent (2.0%) of Gross Revenues received from the sale of Licensed Products.”
  • “Licensee shall pay any deficiency, plus interest thereon from the date each payment was due, within thirty (20) days of the date of any notice of such discrepancy.”

Now, for those of you paying attention, you will notice that the spelled out numbers do not match the digits appearing in parentheticals. Why do attorneys do this? What class in law school do they teach this? I’m told this is a practice that dates back to the days of carbon copies and “old school” telefax machines, where parties needed two chances to be able to discern the figures in legal documents. But, in today’s world of TrueType fonts and portable document formats, why continue this practice? Which number governs if after reviewing a twenty (20) page license agreement, both sets of lawyers and clients did not catch the discrepancy!? (Wasn’t that “twenty (20)” annoying!?) Well, different jurisdictions have different rules of contract construction! Why leave it to chance? Do people realize that over the course of an already complex IP agreement, such practice may add one or more pages to the document’s length!?

So, for everyone’s sake, I propose the following simple rule: If the number is from zero to nine, write it out in words, else write it in Arabic digits! If it works for college essays, it should work for IP agreements (and all other contracts) too!

Written by Raymond Millien