Ellis v. Rush

How courts have described this case

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

• citing, inter alia, Heyman v. AR. Winarick, Inc., 325 F.2d 584, 588–90 (2d Cir. 1963)
• discussing use of clickwrap agreement with skepticism but ultimately finding lack of confidentiality provision altogether to be dispositive of trade secret inquiry
• denying plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction after finding “information that 26 [plaintiff] alleges defendants to have misappropriated c[ould] not qualify as trade secrets”
• noting that “Broker Genius discloses the information that it alleges to be its trade secrets to each of its licensees as a matter of course,” and yet “it has not shown that it required those licensees to maintain the confidentiality of user-facing elements of [its] software”
• “[A] plaintiff can still have a viable trade secrets claim if ele- ments of the trade secret go beyond what was disclosed in the pa- tent application.”
• software was not a trade secret in part because the plaintiff did not “mark its training materials, emails about the software’s functionalities, or the software itself with confidentiality legends.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).