- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
December 5, 2024Jake Holdreith Named to Twin Cities Business Top 100
-
December 4, 2024Robins Kaplan Obtains $10.5 Million Post-Verdict in Landmark Aerosol Dust Remover Abuse Case
-
December 2, 2024Robins Kaplan LLP Announces 2025 Partners
-
December 12, 2024Strategies for Licensing AI: A Litigation Perspective
-
December 11, 20242024 Year in Review: eDiscovery and Artificial Intelligence
-
December 4, 2024Trust & Estate Litigation in Minnesota
-
December 2024A Landmark Victory for Disabled Homeless Veterans: Q&A with the Trial Team
-
November 8, 2024Trademark tensions on the track: Court upholds First Amendment protections in Haas v. Steiner
-
November 8, 2024Destination Skiing And The DOJ's Mountain Merger Challenge
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
Read our attorneys' take on the latest news and trends in the legal and business industries.
The Sedona Conference Commentary on the Governance and Management of Trade Secrets
Contributing Editor David Prange
July 2023
This Commentary was written from both legal and business perspectives as a useful reference for the design and implementation of trade secret governance and protection programs in corporate environments. It can also provide insight to litigators and judges about the practical ways companies approach the “reasonable efforts” requirement in trade secret law. The central message is that programs to manage trade secrets, like other business processes, should align with business objectives in the context of the needs of the specific business. Ideally, trade secret management should be contextual and strategic, and not just a collection of “boilerplate” forms and protocols that may bear little relationship to the actual trade secrets and risk environment of a particular company.
While trade secret management demands strategic business thinking, it also has a legal dimension. The existence of a trade secret depends in part on whether the company has exercised “reasonable efforts” (or “reasonable measures”) directed at maintaining its secrecy. This standard corresponds to the relevant circumstances of each enterprise, so that there can be no “one size fits all.” In effect it suggests that the judge or jury apply the same kind of analysis; namely, an assessment of the value of, and risks to, specific trade secrets in the context of the company’s particular business and resources. The authors hope that this paper will help management formulate a proactive, tailored, and practical approach to managing trade secret assets that will address both business and legal requirements.
Content courtesy of The Sedona Conference. For more resources, visit Publications | The Sedona Conference.
While trade secret management demands strategic business thinking, it also has a legal dimension. The existence of a trade secret depends in part on whether the company has exercised “reasonable efforts” (or “reasonable measures”) directed at maintaining its secrecy. This standard corresponds to the relevant circumstances of each enterprise, so that there can be no “one size fits all.” In effect it suggests that the judge or jury apply the same kind of analysis; namely, an assessment of the value of, and risks to, specific trade secrets in the context of the company’s particular business and resources. The authors hope that this paper will help management formulate a proactive, tailored, and practical approach to managing trade secret assets that will address both business and legal requirements.
Content courtesy of The Sedona Conference. For more resources, visit Publications | The Sedona Conference.
The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.
David Prange - The Sedona Conference®
READ FULL ARTICLE Related Professionals
David A. Prange
Partner
Related Publications
November 6, 2024
How Recent Patent Damages Precedent May Increase Reasonable Royalty Awards
Aaron Fahrenkrog, Emily Tremblay, Samuel LaRoque, and William Jones - IPWatchdog
August 22, 2024
Prior Art Takeaways From Fed. Circ. Public Disclosure Ruling
Derrick Carman - Law360
August 7, 2024
Making a Case for Trade Secret Misappropriation in the US
David Prange, Benjamen Linden and Demitri Dawson - IAM
June 11, 2024
Three Alternatives to the USPTO's Terminal Disclaimer Proposal
Cyrus Morton and Rajin Olson - IAM
April 30, 2024
A World Without Non-Competes: Protecting Confidential Information and Trade Secrets Following the FTC's Ban
Chris Larus, David Prange, Rajin Olson
Related News
November 7, 2024
September 9, 2024
August 15, 2024
Back to Top
Any information that you send us in an e-mail message should not be confidential or otherwise privileged information. Sending us an e-mail message will not make you a client of Robins Kaplan LLP. We do not accept representation until we have had an opportunity to evaluate your matter, including but not limited to an ethical evaluation of whether we are in a conflict position to represent you. Accordingly, the information you provide to us in an e-mail should not be information for which you would have an expectation of confidentiality.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.