Diomed, Inc. v. Vascular Solutions, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that plaintiff was entitled to argue that defendant’s duty of confidentiality extended beyond the scope of the NDA
• explaining that Chapter 93A “has been applied by Massachusetts courts to misappropriation of trade secrets” (quoting Prescott v. Morton Int’l, Inc., 769 F. Supp. 404, 407 (D. Mass. 1990))
• “marketing strategy information” constitutes a trade secret (citing Campbell Soup, 47 F.3d at 469 n.4)
• Massachusetts courts have recognized that information not protected by express agreement may still be confidential for purposes of misappropriation claim
• “[T]he standards of novelty or invention required for patentability are higher than the standard of secrecy required for trade secret.”
• “[t]he fact that [sic] improvement was patentable indicated that it was not readily ascertainable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).