Trandes Corporation v. Guy F. Atkinson Company, and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that, to state a claim under the MUTSA, plaintiff must show evidence of a misappropriated trade secret
• holding that a state claim of misappropriation of trade secrets is not preempted by Sec. 301(a) because \the breach of a duty of trust or confidentiality comprises the core of actions for trade secret misappropriation\
• holding that a software producer “took reasonable precautions” to keep its object code secret such that a “rational jury could conclude” it was a trade secret
• holding that a claim Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 82 F.3d 1533, 1543 (10th Cir. under the Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act was not 1996) (following Trandes Corp.
• holding trade secret misappropriation not preempted in claim against defendant who “improperly acquired and used” trade secrets from a third party that had a contractual and fiduciary duty to the plaintiff
• holding that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to show it had trade secrets because no reasonable jury could differentiate them from \matters of general knowledge in the trade\ (quoting Diodes, Inc. v. Franzen, 260 Cal. App. 2d 244, 253 (Ct. App. 1968)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).