Misappropriation of Trade Secrets in Michigan featured image

Misappropriation of Trade Secrets in Michigan

by Eric Misterovich

Partner

Intellectual Property Law

The Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA) provides the statutory authority for businesses to prevent, or put a stop to, the unlawful use of their trade secrets. While other causes of action may be included, this situation calls for an action for “misappropriation of trade secrets.”

The Three Elements of Misappropriation of Trade Secrets in Michigan

The test to establish the misappropriation of trade secrets contains three elements:

  1. the existence of a trade secret;
  2. the defendant’s acquisition of the trade secret in confidence, and,
  3. the defendant’s unauthorized use of it.

The Existence of a Trade Secret

The MUSTA defines a trade secret as: information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that is both of the following:

(i) 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.

(ii) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

In other words, the information must be a secret, meaning evidence has be presented that sufficient means were taken to guard its secrecy. This element, whether the information is a protectable trade secret,  is typically subject to considerable litigation and often presents a turning point in trade secret litigation.

The Defendant’s Acquisition of the Trade Secret in Confidence

Consistent with the definition of trade secret, there must be an indication between the parties that the information being shared is being shared in confidence. Often this is accomplished through the execution of a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement. In rare circumstances, courts can imply a duty to hold information in confidence.

The Defendants’ Unauthorized Use of the Trade Secret

The final prong requires the plaintiff to present enough evidence to substantiate not only that the defendant used the information, but that the defendant was not authorized to use that information.

This prong can involve a heavily fact intensive analysis regarding the information at issue, the proper use of the information, and the limits, either express or implied, on the permissible use of the information.

Contact a Michigan Trade Secrets Attorney

Trade secret plaintiffs must overcome a number of hurdles to prove their claims. Revision Legal attorneys have experience both prosecuting and defending trade secret cases.

If you require a Michigan trade secrets attorney, contact Revision Legal today, by completing the contact form on this page or by calling us at the number above.

Extra, Extra!
Recent Posts

Does the AI-Copyright Legal Fight Represent a National Security Threat?

Does the AI-Copyright Legal Fight Represent a National Security Threat?

Copyright

The holders of copyrights for newspapers, magazines, books, and other publications are involved in numerous legal battles with owners of AI modules over alleged copyright infringement. The plaintiff copyright owners claim that the AI large language modules have been trained on huge quantities of copyrighted materials without permission and — most importantly — without payment. […]

Read more about Does the AI-Copyright Legal Fight Represent a National Security Threat?

How Does Buy-Sell Insurance Work For An Owners’ Agreement?

How Does Buy-Sell Insurance Work For An Owners’ Agreement?

Corporate

The owners of most small, closely-held businesses negotiate and sign some form of an “Owner’s Agreement.” An important part of such Agreements is the “Buy-Sell” provisions. These are often some of the most difficult to negotiate. The gist of the buy-sell part of the Owners’ Agreement is to establish the rules for what happens if […]

Read more about How Does Buy-Sell Insurance Work For An Owners’ Agreement?

Status on Social Media Moderation Statutes and Cases

Status on Social Media Moderation Statutes and Cases

Internet Law

Social media content moderation by technology platforms was one of the “hot” legal topics in 2023-2024. Three States — California, Texas, and Florida — passed different statutes to either require more content moderation (California) or to limit such moderation (Texas and Florida). All the statutes, in one way or another, demanded more transparency and information […]

Read more about Status on Social Media Moderation Statutes and Cases

Put Revision Legal on your side