{"id":98,"date":"2016-06-12T11:33:13","date_gmt":"2016-06-12T15:33:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/?p=98"},"modified":"2016-06-12T11:37:57","modified_gmt":"2016-06-12T15:37:57","slug":"is-the-inevitable-disclosure-doctrine-inevitable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/?p=98","title":{"rendered":"Is the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine Inevitable?"},"content":{"rendered":"

An important feature of the recently enacted Defense of Trade Secrets Act was that it left state trade secret law intact. \u00a0This meant that states that had adopted the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine could continue to apply it, and states that had not adopted the Doctrine (e.g.<\/em>, California Bayer Corp. v. Roche Molecular Sys.,<\/em>
\nInc.<\/em>, 72 F.Supp.2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 1999), and Florida Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc.<\/em>, 148 F.Supp.2d 1326 (S.D. Fla. 2001).) were not forced to adopt it. \u00a0This Doctrine, established by the Seventh Circuit in\u00a0PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond<\/em>, 54 F.3d 1262, 1269 (7th Cir. 1995), allows a trade secret owner to\u00a0prove a claim of\u00a0trade secret misappropriation by\u00a0demonstrating that the defendant’s new\u00a0employment will inevitably lead him to\u00a0rely on the plaintiff’s trade secrets.<\/p>\n

It would appear that the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine is but one way of proving a “threatend missapproiation” prohibited by Mo.Rev. State.\u00a0417.455 of the Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act. \u00a0However the status of the Doctrine of Inevitable Disclosure in Missouri is unclear. \u00a0At least three cases discuss the Doctrine, and while they found it inapplicable under the particular circumstances, did not reject the Doctrine outright. \u00a0See,\u00a0Lasco Foods,, Inc. v. Hall & Shaw Sales, Mktg. & Consulting, L.L.C.<\/em>, No. 4:08cv01683,\u00a0January-February 2015 \/ 33\u00a02009 WL 3834099, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 16,2009); Carboline Co. v. Lebeck<\/em>, 990 F.Supp. 762, 767-68 (E.D. Mo. 1997), and\u00a0H & R Block Eastern Tax Servs., Inc. v. Enchura<\/em>, 122 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1075\u00a0(W.D. Mo. 2000).<\/p>\n

In\u00a0H & R Block Eastern Tax Servs., Inc. v. Enchura,<\/em> 122 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1075\u00a0(W.D. Mo. 2000), the district court indicated that “inevitability alone is insufficient\u00a0to justify injunctive relief; rather, demonstrated inevitability in\u00a0combination with a finding that there is unwillingness to preserve\u00a0confidentiality is required.\u201d Other factors that might be analyzed in determining\u00a0whether to apply the doctrine:include:<\/p>\n