In re Merchandise Mart of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a plausible inference of use was raised where “knowledge of [the trade secret] would enable [the defendant] inevitably to better compete with [the plaintiff]”
• concluding plaintiff sufficiently raised an inference that defendant used its trade secret where defendant was positioned to benefit from use of the trade secret because “knowledge of the [trade secret] would enable [defendant] inevitably to better compete with [plaintiff]”
• concluding plaintiff sufficiently raised an inference that defendant used its trade secret where defendant was positioned to benefit from use of the trade secret because “knowledge of the [trade secret] would enable [defendant] inevitably to better compete with [plaintiff]”
• finding a plausible inference of use was raised where “knowledge of [the trade secret] would enable [the defendant] inevitably to better compete with [the plaintiff]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).