PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond

30 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Arizona trade secret law

    Vondran LegalSteve VondranJuly 5, 2023

    t of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.Information is a tradesecret if it "[d]erives 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" and reasonable efforts are made to maintain secrecy. A.R.S. § 44-401(4). Thus, the two-part test under the AUTSA "focuses on: first, whether the subject matter of the information is secret; and second, whether reasonable efforts have been taken to keep the information secret." Id. at 106, ¶ 15. Whether information qualifies as a tradesecret is a mixed question of law and fact.Pricing informationArizona law does not provide clear answers, making it necessary to look to other jurisdictions for guidance. Courts have routinely held that pricing information qualifies as a tradesecret where its economic value depends on secrecy. See PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262, 1270 (7th Cir. 1995)(Pepsi's marketing, pricing and distribution information found to be a tradesecret); Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc. v. Keystone Steel Fabrication, Inc., 584 F.2d 946, 952 (10th Cir. 1978)(“confidential data regarding operating and pricing policies can also qualify as tradesecrets”); Brocade Comm. Sys. V. A10 Networks, Inc., 873 F. Supp.2d 1192, 1214 (N.D. Cal. 2012)(pricing guidelines “routinely given tradesecret protection”). In Sw. Stainless, LP v. Sappington, 582 F.3d 1176, 1189 (10th Cir. 2009), the court found that, under Oklahoma's tradesecret act, pricing information was a tradesecret. The Oklahoma legislator's version of UTSA is identical to the Arizona Act in how it defines tradesecrets. Okla. Stat. tit. 78, § 85. The same rubric applies to pricing information as to all other categories of tradesecrets. Courts look to see if the information itself actually gives its holder a competitive edge and derives value from not being generally known. When a business has its competitor's

  2. Emerging Trends in Defend Trade Secrets Act Litigation

    K&L Gates LLPApril BoyerSeptember 27, 2017

    [19] Id. [20] PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262, 1269 (7th Cir. 1995). [21] Molon Motor & Coil Corp. v. Nidec Motor Corp., No. 16 C 03545, 2017 WL 1954531, at *5 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2017) (quoting Saban v. Caremark Rx, L.L.C., 780 F. Supp. 2d 700, 734–35 (N.D. Ill. 2011)). [22] 18 U.S.C. § 1836(3)(A)(i) (emphasis added).

  3. The DTSA and Inevitable Disclosure

    Fisher & Phillips LLPCorey GoerdtMay 20, 2016

    An illustration may be helpful. In PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995), the seminal case for the inevitable disclosure doctrine, PepsiCo sought an injunction preventing a former high-level manager from going to work in a similar position for Quaker's Gatorade brand. The court of appeals upheld a district court's injunction preventing the manager from taking the position at Quaker because, even though the manager did not take any physical or electronic trade secrets, he would "inevitably" rely on his knowledge of PepsiCo's trade secrets in his new job.

  4. Inevitable Disclosure Theory Helps Plaintiff Overcome Standing Hurdle

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPMay 30, 2023

    es in violation of the DTSA, the ITSA, and the parties’ confidentiality agreement.After three years of discovery, Marquis amended its complaint to add allegations that Novozymes poses a future threat that it will inevitably use or disclose Marquis’ trade secrets, and Marquis even admitted during oral argument that it had no direct evidence that Novozymes had already shared its trade secrets with Green Plains. Rather, the plaintiff acknowledged that its focus was on the threat of future breach. Novozymes moved to dismiss the amended complaint arguing that Marquis lacked standing because of lack of evidence of actual misappropriation and because allegations of future threats of misappropriation are insufficient for establishing standing.The Court denied the motion, finding that Marquis had standing under both the ITSA and DTSA as both statutes allow the enjoining of not only actual but also threatened misappropriation. Relying on the Seventh Circuit decision in PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995), the Court recognized that a trade secret misappropriation claim could be established where a defendant’s new employment will inevitably lead him or her to rely on a plaintiff’s trade secrets. When determining if a defendant will inevitably disclose trade secrets in his or her new position, courts consider (1) the level of competition between the former and the new employer; (2) whether the employee’s new position is comparable to the position she or he held with the former employer; and (3) the new employer’s actions to prevent the employee from using or disclosing trade secrets of the former employer. The Court held that Marquis pointed to sufficient evidence at the motion to dismiss stage on each of these factors that: (1) Green Plains is Marquis’ direct competitor, (2) Novozymes is in a similar position of assisting Green Plains in improving its processes as when Novozymes was collaborating with Marquis, and (3) Novozymes failed to sufficiently protect Marquis’ trade secrets. In r

  5. The "Inevitable Disclosure" Doctrine and the DTSA

    Holland & Knight LLPJanuary 27, 2023

    1) whether the employers in question are direct competitors providing the same or very similar services; 2) whether the employee's new position is nearly identical to his old one, such that he could not reasonably be expected to fulfill his new job responsibilities without utilizing the trade secrets of his former employer; and 3) whether the trade secrets at issue are highly valuable to both employers. This three-factor analysis is fully compatible with the DTSA's limitation on when injunctive relief can be granted.In sum, the drafters of the DTSA were careful not to take a side in the debate between the states over the inevitable disclosure doctrine. The DTSA, by its terms, neither embraces nor rejects "inevitable disclosure" as a means of proving threatened misappropriation. It does, however, preclude courts from imposing a de facto noncompete requirement on a former employee as a remedy for threatened or actual misappropriation of trade secrets.Notes See PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262, 1269 (7th Cir. 1995).Kinship Partners, Inc. v. Embark Veterinary, Inc., 2022 WL 72123, at *7 (D. Or. 2022).EarthWeb, Inc. v. Schlack, 71 F. Supp. 2d 299, 310 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).Phoseon Technology, Inc. v. Heathcote, 2019 WL 7282497, at *11 (D. Or. 2019).Future Metals LLC v. Ruggiero, 2021 WL 5853896, at *17 n.18 (S.D. Fla. 2021).Kinship Partners, 2022 WL 72123, at *7.Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. McAndrews, 552 F. Supp. 3d 319, 331 (D. Conn. 2021). 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)(I) (emphasis added).Kinship Partners, 2022 WL 72123, at *7.IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. v. Bilbrough, 2022 WL 3042966, at *5-6 (D. Me. 2022). S. Rep. No. 114-220 at 9 (2016).Id. 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)(II).Amazon.com, Inc. v. Powers, 2012 WL 6726538, at *7 (W.D. Wash. 2012). See Sunbelt Rentals, 552 F. Supp. 3d at 331.

  6. An Emerging Split on the Applicability of the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine Under the DTSA

    Mintz - Intellectual Property ViewpointsNicholas ArmingtonOctober 11, 2022

    Federal courts remain split on whether the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) allows for trade secret misappropriation claims brought under a theory of inevitable disclosure. Given this current patchwork of treatment of inevitable disclosure claims across the nation, owners of trade secrets and litigators of trade secret claims should continue to stay up to date on the treatment of this issue in the jurisdictions in which they practice.BackgroundThe inevitable disclosure doctrine allows a plaintiff to “prove a claim of trade secret misappropriation by demonstrating that defendant’s new employment will inevitably lead him to rely on the plaintiff’s trade secrets.”PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262, 1269 (7th Cir. 1995). The doctrine is not predicated on the former employee physically taking anything when leaving an employer, e.g. stealing a customer list or proprietary formula; rather, it relies on the notion that the former employee’s knowledge of trade secret gained over the course of his or her employment will inevitably lead to improper disclosure or use when later employed by a competitor or other entity in a position to exploit the trade secrets. Id. at 1270. While several states, such as Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New York, appear to recognize the theory under their respective state trade secrets laws, others, such as California, do not. See Phoseon Tech., Inc. v. Heathcote, 2019 WL 72497, *11 (D. Or. Dec. 27, 2019) (“Seventeen states appear to have adopted the inevitable disclosure doctrine in one form or another… Five states appear to have rejected the doctrine.”)Several federal courts have also allowed inevitable disclosure claims under the DTSA. In Packaging Corp. of Am., Inc. v. Croner,

  7. Happy Anniversary, DTSA: The Defend Trade Secrets Act At Five

    Morrison & Foerster LLPKenneth KuwaytiMay 26, 2021

    18 USC § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)(I)-(II).See, e.g., EL T Sight, Inc. v. Eyelight, Inc., 2020 WL 7862134, at *16 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2020) (collecting cases).PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995).See, e.g., Inventus Power, Inc. v. Shenzhen Ace Battery Co., 2020 WL 3960451, at *11 (N.D. Ill. July 13, 2020) (and cases cited therein).

  8. Inevitable Disclosure: Recognition (or Lack Thereof) Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act

    Holland & Knight LLPBrandon ElledgeAugust 17, 2018

    at *7. The district court also cited the Seventh Circuit’s well known decision in PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995), which found that “defendants are incorrect that Illinois law does not allow a court to enjoin the ‘inevitable’ disclosure of trade secrets.” Id.

  9. Massachusetts to Adopt the Uniform Trade Secrets Act

    Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair CompetitionPhilip SwainAugust 10, 2018

    This has been interpreted by many courts to allow injunctions against the “inevitable disclosure” of trade secrets; that is, in effect, to allow trade secret owners to stop their former employees from working for their competitors because their work for the competitor would result in the “inevitable disclosure” of the prior employer’s trade secrets. See, e.g.,PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995) (Pepsi executive enjoined from working for competitor because continued employment with competitor would result in employee’s inevitable disclosure of confidential marketing and development strategies). Under the prior Massachusetts trade secret law, no Massachusetts appellate court has yet adopted the doctrine of inevitable disclosure (although lower courts have taken inconsistent positions on the issue).

  10. Louisiana Court Treats Inevitable Disclosure Provision as Non-Compete Clause Subject to Geographic Restrictions

    Jones Walker LLPPepper AllgoodNovember 22, 2017

    Courts in some jurisdictions, under the “inevitable disclosure” doctrine, will preclude an employee from working for a competitor, even without a non-compete agreement, if use of confidential information or trade secrets would be the inevitable result of the employment. In the famous case, PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995), the federal Seventh Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction that prevented a departing employee from starting work with a new employer, even though he had not signed a non-compete agreement. The court in PepsiCo said that, under the particular facts of that case, it was not realistic to think the employee could avoid using at his new job the secrets and protected confidential information that he had learned from his previous employer.