D NJ allows trade secret case to proceed over issue that receiving company had reason to Know that it obtained plaintiff’s claimed “trade secrets” by Improper means

There is an interesting trade secret case in the federal district court of New Jersey involving
alleged trade secret disclosure by an employee moving from Baxter to HQ.

Text of a recent ruling:


The Court, however, need not belabor the parties’
positions, because genuine factual disputes plainly preclude a
finding in HQ’s favor. Indeed, Mr. Owoo’s presentment of his
esmolol proposal to HQ less than a month after his Baxter
termination, standing alone, creates a reasonable inference that
Mr. Owoo conceived of his esmolol proposal while at Baxter, and
HQ’s own records permit the inference that it named Ms. Castagna
an inventor mostly as a courtesy (and not necessarily because
she conceived of the esmolol formulation embodied in HQ’s
patents). (See Exs. B, D, E to Kelly Dec.; Ex. 29 to Gallo
Dec.; Squeglia Dep. at 174:23-175:2.) Even more, no party
challenges the fact that Mr. Owoo contractually assigned to
Baxter his rights to any invention “conceived or reduced to
practice by” him, during his employment with Baxter or within
120 days following his termination.




link: http://www.tradesecretsnoncompetelaw.com/files/2016/02/Baxter-Healthcare-v-HQ-Specialty.pdf