Opinion ID: 2342544
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Uniform Trade Secrets Act

Text: [¶ 26] On cross-appeal, RBK argues that the court's analysis of the UTSA claim contained numerous errors of law, and that the court ignored the pertinent statutory language and applied the wrong legal standards to the facts. [¶ 27] In its counterclaim, RBK seeks injunctive relief and damages for Mr. Levine's alleged misappropriation of a trade secret. See 10 M.R.S.A. §§ 1543, 1544. As an initial matter, a court examining a claim under the UTSA must determine whether the information at issue constitutes a trade secret, as that term is defined in 10 M.R.S.A. § 1542(4). [5] See Northeast Coating Techs., Inc. v. Vacuum Metallurgical Co., 684 A.2d 1322, 1324 (Me.1996). In order for information to qualify as a trade secret, the information must: (1) derive independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known [or] readily ascertainable; [6] and (2) be the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. [7] 10 M.R.S.A. § 1542(4); Northeast Coating Techs., Inc., 684 A.2d at 1324. [¶ 28] Even if the computer program qualified as a trade secret. RBK could not recover damages or obtain injunctive relief under the UTSA without establishing misappropriation. See 10 M.R.S.A. § 1544. The term misappropriation means, inter alia: [d]isclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who ... [a]t the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was ... [a]cquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use.... 10 M.R.S.A. § 1542(2)(B). [¶ 29] Thus, RBK bore the burden of establishing that the information at issue constituted a trade secret and that Levine misappropriated the protected information. The trial court found that RBK failed to sustain its burden. We are not compelled to find otherwise. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.