Opinion ID: 1747999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Misappropriation of a Trade Secret

Text: Where a trade secret is at issue, we must next determine whether ConAgra misappropriated the secret. Misappropriation of a trade secret is defined at Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-601 as: (A) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or who has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (B) Disclosure of use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who: (i) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (ii) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was: (a) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; (b) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limits its use; or (c) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limits its use; or (iii) Before material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake. Id. ConAgra's actions clearly constitute misappropriation of a trade secret. Purtle knew or had reason to know that giving the confidential nutrient profile to ConAgra constituted a conversion of the trade secret for ConAgra's benefit by improper means. He understood the nutrient profile to be confidential and in limited distribution within Tyson, but still gave it to ConAgra nutritionists for use in order to reduce costs. Purtle's misappropriation of the nutrient formula was a breach of his agreement with Tyson to keep that information confidential. His former position at Tyson as the Senior Vice-President of Retail Sales at Tyson gave him access to confidential trade secrets. He handed over those trade secrets to ConAgra immediately after being hired, a blatant misappropriation and abuse of his former position at Tyson. It seems clear to me that the trial court's findings that the nutrient profile was a trade secret, that the trade secret was misappropriated and delivered to a competitor, and that this misappropriation of a trade secret damaged Tyson in a substantial amount are all supported by the evidence. I cannot find an instance where those findings were clearly erroneous. For that reason, I believe we should reverse the trial court on its erroneous interpretation of the principles of law articulated in our decision in Tyson I , and reinstate the trial court's findings and the jury verdict. Because the majority concludes otherwise, the majority did not discuss the issue of a possible remittitur, and I will also refrain from addressing that issue. I respectfully dissent.