Electro-Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that district court findings of “trade secrets in the general ‘design procedures’ for [a] brushless motor” lacked sufficient specificity and that “[t]his lack of clarity is fatal to [plaintiff’s] claim”
• stating that under the UTSA, “[without a proven trade secret there can be no action for misappropriation, even if defendants’ actions were wrongful”
• explaining that “more than an intention” to keep something secret is required (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding no trade secret protection where none of company's relevant documents marked as confidential
• holding no trade secret protection where none of company’s relevant documents marked as confidential
• finding a “lack of clarity” in defining trade secrets prevented the entry of an injunction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).