Trade Secrets Law in Guam (US)
Trade secret law in Guam follows the principles of trade secret protection set out in the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) at the federal level, as well as Guam’s own Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), which is modeled on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) that has been adopted by many U.S. states.
Key Aspects of Trade Secret Law in Guam
Definition of Trade Secrets: Under Guam's trade secrets law, a trade secret is defined as information that:
Has economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known or easily ascertainable by others who could obtain value from its disclosure or use.
Is subject to efforts to maintain its secrecy that are reasonable under the circumstances.
Misappropriation: Trade secret misappropriation occurs when someone improperly acquires, discloses, or uses a trade secret without consent. This can happen through means like theft, bribery, or breach of confidentiality.
Injunctions and Damages: Trade secret owners may seek injunctions to prevent further use of misappropriated secrets and claim damages, including both actual losses and the unjust enrichment of the defendant.
Statute of Limitations: Generally, trade secret claims in Guam must be brought within three years after the misappropriation is discovered or should have been discovered with reasonable diligence.
Notable Cases in Guam (Hypothetical)
While there may not be as many landmark trade secret cases in Guam as in larger jurisdictions like California or New York, hypothetical scenarios based on real-world trends can illustrate how trade secret law is applied in the territory.
Case 1: XYZ Manufacturing Co. v. ABC Corp.
In this case, XYZ Manufacturing, a company based in Guam, filed a lawsuit against ABC Corp. for misappropriating trade secrets related to a proprietary manufacturing process for custom machinery. XYZ claimed that ABC, a competitor, had hired an employee from XYZ who had access to sensitive blueprints and manufacturing techniques. XYZ argued that this was a violation of the employee’s non-compete and non-disclosure agreements.
Issue: Whether ABC Corp. unlawfully used XYZ’s trade secrets in developing its own product line.
Ruling: The court granted an injunction to prevent ABC Corp. from continuing to use XYZ’s trade secrets and awarded XYZ compensatory damages based on the actual loss it suffered from the misappropriation, which was calculated based on lost profits and market share.
Case 2: Pacific Technologies v. Hanohano Industries
Pacific Technologies, a high-tech firm specializing in electronic components, alleged that Hanohano Industries had gained access to its trade secrets related to a cutting-edge circuit design through an employee who had previously worked for Pacific Technologies. The employee, while still under a non-disclosure agreement, transferred files to Hanohano Industries.
Issue: Whether Hanohano Industries knowingly misappropriated the circuit design, which was a trade secret under Guam’s UTSA.
Ruling: The court sided with Pacific Technologies, concluding that the trade secret in question was well-guarded, and the employee's actions in sharing the design with a competitor violated both the terms of his contract and trade secret law. Pacific Technologies was awarded punitive damages due to the malicious nature of the misappropriation.
Case 3: Global Systems v. Samoan Enterprises
Global Systems, an international software developer, filed suit against Samoan Enterprises, alleging that an employee who left the company and joined Samoan Enterprises used proprietary software code to help Samoan build a similar program. The employee had been trained in the software’s development and had signed a non-compete clause.
Issue: Whether the software code was a protected trade secret and if the employee’s actions breached the duty of confidentiality.
Ruling: The court found that the code was indeed a trade secret, as it was unique and not generally known in the industry. The court issued an injunction and awarded Global Systems substantial damages, but limited the scope of the award since the employee had made efforts to return the code and cease using it.
Case 4: Guam Seafood Co. v. Island Fisheries
In this case, Guam Seafood Co. accused Island Fisheries of stealing its proprietary methods for processing and packaging seafood products. The employee who had worked for Guam Seafood Co. allegedly shared these trade secrets with Island Fisheries after leaving the company. The issue was whether the seafood company’s techniques qualified as trade secrets.
Issue: Whether the methods used by Guam Seafood Co. qualified as trade secrets under Guam law.
Ruling: The court ruled that Guam Seafood Co. had taken adequate steps to protect its proprietary methods, such as limiting access to the processes and using confidentiality agreements with employees. Therefore, the court granted an injunction and awarded damages, as Island Fisheries was found to have unlawfully acquired and used the trade secrets.
Case 5: Hafa Adai Tech v. Pacific Innovations
Hafa Adai Tech, a technology startup in Guam, accused Pacific Innovations of stealing their product design for a new mobile app. Hafa Adai Tech’s claim was based on an employee who had left their company to work at Pacific Innovations. The dispute focused on whether the product design was protected under the law and whether Pacific Innovations had committed trade secret misappropriation.
Issue: Whether the app design, still in the development stage and not yet publicly released, was a trade secret.
Ruling: The court ruled that the app design was a trade secret, given that Hafa Adai Tech had used reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. Pacific Innovations was ordered to cease using the design and return any related materials. The court also awarded Hafa Adai Tech damages, which included both the value of the design and potential profits lost.
Key Takeaways:
Secrecy: In all cases, the protection of the trade secret depended heavily on whether reasonable steps were taken to maintain its confidentiality (e.g., NDAs, limiting access, etc.).
Economic Value: The courts often consider whether the trade secret has actual or potential economic value due to its secrecy.
Injunctions and Damages: Courts in Guam, like elsewhere, can issue injunctions and award both actual and punitive damages for trade secret misappropriation, especially if the misappropriation was found to be intentional.
These cases reflect the fundamental principles of trade secret law and show how it is applied in various industries, including manufacturing, technology, and even seafood processing, on Guam. The law helps protect businesses from the economic harm that can result from the unauthorized use of proprietary information.
RELATED Blog
comments