{"id":102,"date":"2024-03-08T19:51:55","date_gmt":"2024-03-08T18:51:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.droitangloamericaindespi.com\/brevets\/?post_type=chapter&p=102"},"modified":"2024-11-12T14:48:36","modified_gmt":"2024-11-12T13:48:36","slug":"la-protection-aux-etats-unis","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/www.droitangloamericaindespi.com\/brevets\/chapter\/la-protection-aux-etats-unis\/","title":{"raw":"La protection aux Etats-Unis d'Am\u00e9rique","rendered":"La protection aux Etats-Unis d’Am\u00e9rique"},"content":{"raw":" \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n442._ Pr\u00e9sentation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale_<\/strong> Aux \u00c9tats-Unis, l\u2019information confidentielle et les secrets commerciaux sont prot\u00e9g\u00e9s par la common law<\/em> et par la loi \u00e9crite. Jusqu\u2019\u00e0 r\u00e9cemment, la loi \u00e9crite n\u2019existait qu\u2019au niveau des \u00c9tats f\u00e9d\u00e9r\u00e9s, dont la quasi-totalit\u00e9 a ratifi\u00e9 l'Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), publi\u00e9 par l'Uniform Law Commission en 1979, qui codifie et compl\u00e8te les principes d\u00e9gag\u00e9s en common law<\/em> dans certains \u00c9tats[footnote]Uniform Trade Secret Act<\/a>, v. infra<\/em>, n\u00b0444.[\/footnote]. Au niveau f\u00e9d\u00e9ral, certains textes en mati\u00e8re d'espionnage industriel permettaient de sanctionner certains d\u00e9tournements[footnote]Notamment l'Economic Espionage Act de 1996 et le Protecting American IP Act 2023, v. infra<\/em>, n\u00b0444 et 447.[\/footnote], mais il n\u2019existait pas de loi g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de protection des secrets des affaires. L'adoption en 2016 du Defend Trade secret Act[footnote]Public Law No 114-153<\/a>, v. infra<\/em>, n\u00b0 445.[\/footnote] a combl\u00e9 cette lacune. Il faut \u00e9galement tenir compte du Computer Fraud and Abuse Act de 1986 et, dans le registre de la lutte contre l'espionnage, du Protecting American Intellectual Property Act de 2023.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n443_ La protection par le droit des torts<\/em> et des contrats_<\/strong> Il semble que le d\u00e9veloppement remarquable de la protection de la vie priv\u00e9e aux \u00c9tats-Unis se soit fait au d\u00e9triment du d\u00e9veloppement d'un tort<\/em> autonome et g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de breach of confidence<\/em>[footnote]N. M. Richards, D. J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 97, 2007, p. 123. K. B. Remick, Breach of Confidence - The Need for a New Tort - Watts v. Cumberland County Hospital System, Campbell Law Review, Vol. 8, Iss. 1[1985], 145\u00a0; B. C. Murchison, Reflections on Breach of Confidence from the U.S. Experience, 15 Media & Arts L. Rev. 295 (2010)\u00a0; A. B. Vickery, Breach of Confidence: An Emerging Tort, 82 Colum. L . Rev. 1426 (1982).[\/footnote]. La protection de l'information confidentielle est, selon le cas, assur\u00e9e au travers de torts <\/em>ou th\u00e9ories, comme l\u2019invasion of privacy<\/em>, la violation d'un contrat (tortious interference with contracts<\/em>) ou d'une obligation l\u00e9gale, ou au travers d\u2019obligations de confidentialit\u00e9 (donc d\u2019une doctrine de breach of confidence - breach of duty of loyalty or fiduciary duty<\/em>)\u00a0 li\u00e9e \u00e0 des relations particuli\u00e8res (employ\u00e9-employeur, client-avocat, m\u00e9decin patient...). Cette protection en common law<\/em> est assur\u00e9e au niveau des \u00c9tats, et son \u00e9tendue peut donc varier d\u2019un Etat \u00e0 l\u2019autre.\r\n\r\nLe Restatement of Torts de 1939 incluait deux sections sur le secret des affaires. La plupart des tribunaux ont suivi le Restatement, mais il n\u2019a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 de appliqu\u00e9 mani\u00e8re compl\u00e8te ni uniforme. Le Restatement (Second) of Torts de 1978, prenant acte des d\u00e9veloppements l\u00e9gislatifs en cours, n\u2019a pas repris de dispositions sur le secret des affaires. La protection du secret des affaires est d\u00e9sormais vis\u00e9e au Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition de 1995[footnote]Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition<\/a>, \u00a7\u00a7 39 \u00e0 45.[\/footnote]. Un secret des affaires (trade secret<\/em>) y est d\u00e9fini comme \u00ab\u00a0une information qui peut \u00eatre utilis\u00e9e dans l\u2019exercice d\u2019un commerce ou d\u2019une autre entreprise et qui a une valeur et un caract\u00e8re secret suffisants pour conf\u00e9rer un avantage \u00e9conomique r\u00e9el ou potentiel sur d\u2019autres\u00a0\u00bb[footnote]Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition<\/a>, \u00a739: \u00ab\u00a0A trade secret is any information that can be used in the operation of a business or other enterprise and that is sufficiently valuable and secret to afford an actual or potential economic advantage over others\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>.[\/footnote]. La responsabilit\u00e9 pour \u00ab\u00a0appropriation of trade secret<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb est d\u00e9finie comme engag\u00e9e par toute personne qui acquiert par des moyens illicites (improper means<\/em>)[footnote]D\u00e9finis au \u00a7 43 comme suit: \u00ab\u00a0\u201cImproper\u201d means of acquiring another's trade secret under the rule stated in \u00a7 40 include theft, fraud, unauthorized interception of communications, inducement of or knowing participation in a breach of confidence, and other means either wrongful in themselves or wrongful under the circumstances of the case. Independent discovery and analysis of publicly available products or information are not improper means of acquisition\u00a0\u00bb.[\/footnote] une information dont elle sait ou a des raisons de savoir qu\u2019elle constitue un trade secret<\/em>, ou par toute personne qui utilise ou divulgue sans autorisation un trade secret<\/em> dont elle sait qu\u2019il a \u00e9t\u00e9 acquis dans des circonstances impliquant une obligation de confidentialit\u00e9 ou par de moyens illicites[footnote]Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition<\/a>, \u00a7 40. \u00ab\u00a0One is subject to liability for the appropriation of another's trade secret if:(a) the actor acquires by means that are improper under the rule stated in \u00a7 43 information that the actor knows or has reason to know is the other's trade secret; or(b) the actor uses or discloses the other's trade secret without the other's consent and, at the time of the use or disclosure,(1) the actor knows or has reason to know that the information is a trade secret that the actor acquired under circumstances creating a duty of confidence owed by the actor to the other under the rule stated in \u00a7 41; or(2) the actor knows or has reason to know that the information is a trade secret that the actor acquired by means that are improper under the rule stated in \u00a7 43; or(3) the actor knows or has reason to know that the information is a trade secret that the actor acquired from or through a person who acquired it by means that are improper under the rule stated in \u00a7 43 or whose disclosure of the trade secret constituted a breach of a duty of confidence owed to the other under the rule stated in \u00a7 41; or(4) the actor knows or has reason to know that the information is a trade secret that the actor acquired through an accident or mistake, unless the acquisition was the result of the other's failure to take reasonable precautions to maintain the secrecy of the information\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>.[\/footnote]. Une obligation de confidentialit\u00e9 appara\u00eet lorsqu\u2019une personne prend un engagement expr\u00e8s de confidentialit\u00e9 avant divulgation du secret, ou lorque le secret est divulgu\u00e9 dans des circonstances dans lesquelles les relations entre les parties ou d\u2019autre faits permettent de suposer que la personne savait ou avait des rasions de savoir que la divulgation \u00e9tait faite sous condition de confidentialit\u00e9, et que l\u2019autre partie a pu raisonnablement croire que cette personne a consenti \u00e0 cette obligation[footnote]Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition<\/a>, \u00a7 41: \"A person to whom a trade secret has been disclosed owes a duty of confidence to the owner of the trade secret for purposes of the rule stated in \u00a7 40 if: (a) the person made an express promise of confidentiality prior to the disclosure of the trade secret; or (b) the trade secret was disclosed to the person under circumstances in which the relationship between the parties to the disclosure or the other facts surrounding the disclosure justify the conclusions that, at the time of the disclosure, (1) the person knew or had reason to know that the disclosure was intended to be in confidence, and (2) the other party to the disclosure was reasonable in inferring that the person consented to an obligation of confidentiality\". [\/footnote]. L\u2019obligation de confidentialit\u00e9 est \u00e9galement d\u00e9duite de l\u2019existence d\u2019un contrat de travail, au regard des secrets de fabrique de l\u2019employeur[footnote]Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition<\/a>, \u00a7 42: \"An employee or former employee who uses or discloses a trade secret owned by the employer or former employer in breach of a duty of confidence is subject to liability for appropriation of the trade secret under the rule stated in \u00a7 40\".[\/footnote].\r\n\r\nLe droit des contrats offre \u00e9galement une possibilit\u00e9 de protection, au travers des non disclosure <\/em>ou confidentiality agreements<\/em> ou des clauses correspondantes des contrats, couramment pratiqu\u00e9s aux \u00c9tats-Unis, notamment pendant les phases d\u2019approche et n\u00e9gociation pr\u00e9contractuelles. Des obligations tacites peuvent \u00e9galement \u00eatre d\u00e9duites de certaines circonstances ou relations contractuelles (notamment des relations de travail).\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n444._ Les lois \u00e9tatiques et f\u00e9d\u00e9rales_<\/strong> Comme indiqu\u00e9, \u00e0 l'heure actuelle la quasi-totalit\u00e9 des \u00c9tats de l\u2019Union ont adopt\u00e9 (quelquefois avec des modifications) l'Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), publi\u00e9 par l'Uniform Law Commission en 1979 et modifi\u00e9 en 1985, qui codifie et compl\u00e8te les principes d\u00e9gag\u00e9s en common law<\/em>. Son contenu et ses concepts cl\u00e9s, notamment ceux de trade secret<\/em>[footnote]Uniform Trade Secrets Act<\/a>, \u00a7 1(4)\u00a0: \u00ab\u00a0\"Trade secret\" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy\u00a0\u00bb.[\/footnote], de misappropriation [of a trade secret][footnote]Uniform Trade Secrets Ac<\/a>t, \u00a7 1(2)\u00a0: \u00ab\u00a0\"Misappropriation\" means: (i) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (ii) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who (A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (B) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was (I) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; (II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or 5 (C) before a material change of his [or her] 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\u00a0\u00bb.[\/footnote] et d\u2019improper means[footnote]Uniform Trade Secrets Act, \u00a7 1(2)\u00a0: \u00ab\u00a0\"Improper means\" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means\u00a0\u00bb.[\/footnote] sont proches de ceux du Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition. Les tribunaux de plusieurs \u00c9tats ont consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que l\u2019adoption du Trade Secret Act local pr\u00e9emptait les tort<\/em> de common law<\/em> correspondants[footnote]Chisum, p. 208.[\/footnote]. A noter que ni l\u2019UTSA ni les Restaments applicables ne pr\u00e9voient de sanctions p\u00e9nales, qui peuvent cependant \u00eatre institu\u00e9es dans la l\u00e9gislation locale.\r\n\r\nAu niveau f\u00e9d\u00e9ral un protection du secret des affaires a \u00e9t\u00e9 introduite dans\u00a0 l'Economic Espionage Act de 1996[footnote]18 USC \u00a7\u00a7 1831-1839<\/a>.[\/footnote]. Ce texte sanctionne l\u2019espionnage \u00e9conomique (au profit d\u2019une puissance ou organisation \u00e9trang\u00e8re)[footnote]18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1831<\/a>: \"(a) In General. Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly : (1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret; (2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret; (3) receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; (4) attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3); or\r\n(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,\r\nshall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.\r\n(b) Organizations. Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than the greater of $10,000,000 or 3 times the value of the stolen trade secret to the organization, including expenses for research and design and other costs of reproducing the trade secret that the organization has thereby avoided\".[\/footnote] et le \u00ab vol de secret des affaires \u00bb (theft of trade secret<\/em>)[footnote]18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1832<\/a>: \"(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly: (1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information; (2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information; (3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; (4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or (5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,\r\nshall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.\r\n(b) Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than the greater of $5,000,000 or 3 times the value of the stolen trade secret to the organization, including expenses for research and design and other costs of reproducing the trade secret that the organization has thereby avoided\".[\/footnote]. Il ne pr\u00e9voyait \u00e0 l\u2019origine que des sanctions p\u00e9nales. Le Defend Trade Secrets Act de 2016 est venu le compl\u00e9ter en d\u00e9finissant pour la premi\u00e8re fois des sanctions civiles.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n445._ Le Defend Trade Secrets Act de 2016_<\/strong> Le Defend Trade Secrets Act 2016[footnote]Public Law No 114-153<\/a>.[\/footnote] a \u00e9t\u00e9 promulgu\u00e9 le 11 mai 2016. Il vient parfaire l\u2019arsenal l\u00e9gislatif f\u00e9d\u00e9ral en mati\u00e8re de protection du secret des affaires en introduisant notamment des proc\u00e9dures et des sanctions civiles en cas de vol de secret des affaires[footnote]18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1836(b)<\/a>.[\/footnote]. Il renforce \u00e9galement les sanctions p\u00e9nales applicables[footnote]18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1832<\/a>.[\/footnote] et pr\u00e9voit une immunit\u00e9 pour les lanceurs d\u2019alerte[footnote]18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1833<\/a>.[\/footnote], ainsi qu\u2019une obligation pour les employeurs de notifier les dispositions de la loi sur l\u2019immunit\u00e9 aux employ\u00e9s concern\u00e9s[footnote]Sous peine de ne pouvoir recouvrer des dommages et int\u00e9r\u00eats punitifs et des frais d\u2019avocats en cas d\u2019action sur le fondement de la loi contre ces employ\u00e9s. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1833(b)(3)<\/a>.[\/footnote].\r\n\r\nL\u2019action civile n\u2019est ouverte que lorsque le secret des affaires d\u00e9tourn\u00e9 concerne un produit ou un service utilis\u00e9 ou destin\u00e9 \u00e0 \u00eatre utilis\u00e9 dans le commerce inter\u00e9tatique ou avec l\u2019\u00e9tranger[footnote]18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1836(b)(1)<\/a>: \"An owner of a trade secret that is misappropriated may bring a civil action under this subsection if the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce\". Cette condition est conforme \u00e0 la clause de commerce. Elle n'est pas tr\u00e8s exigeante dans la mesure o\u00f9 le secret peut n\u2019\u00eatre que \u00ab destin\u00e9 \u00bb \u00e0 une utilisation inter\u00e9tatique, et o\u00f9 la plupart des secrets satisfont \u00e0 cette condition.[\/footnote]. La loi s'applique \u00e9galement \u00e0 des actes commis en dehors des \u00c9tats Unis si celui qui les commet est une personne physique est un citoyen ou un r\u00e9sident permanent \u00e9tranger des \u00c9tats-Unis, ou une organisation organis\u00e9e en vertu des lois des \u00c9tats-Unis ou d\u2019un \u00c9tat ou d\u2019une subdivision politique de ceux-ci, ou si un acte en application de l\u2019infraction a \u00e9t\u00e9 commis aux \u00c9tats-Unis[footnote]18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1837<\/a>.[\/footnote].\r\n\r\nLes d\u00e9finitions appliqu\u00e9es sont proches de celles de l\u2019UTSA. Le secret des affaires est tout d\u2019abord d\u00e9fini comme suit :\r\n
\r\n\r\n\u00ab\u00a0le terme \u201csecret des affaires\u201d d\u00e9signe tout forme et tout type d\u2019information financi\u00e8re, commerciale, scientifique, technique, \u00e9conomique ou d\u2019ing\u00e9nierie, incluant les mod\u00e8les, les plans, les compilations, les programmes d\u2019appareils, formules, designs, prototypes, m\u00e9thodes, techniques, proc\u00e9d\u00e9s, proc\u00e9dures, programmes, ou codes, mat\u00e9riels ou immat\u00e9riels, de quelque fa\u00e7on qu\u2019ils soient conserv\u00e9s, compil\u00e9s, ou m\u00e9moris\u00e9s, sous forme physique, \u00e9lectronique, graphique, photographique ou par \u00e9crit si:\r\n\r\n(A) leur propri\u00e9taire a pris des mesures raisonnables pour en conserver le caract\u00e8re secret; et si\r\n\r\n(B) l\u2019information tient une valeur \u00e9conomique propre, actuelle ou potentielle, du fait de ne pas \u00eatre connue de, et de ne pas \u00eatre facilement accessible par des moyens licites par, une personne qui peut retirer une valeur \u00e9conomique de sa divulgation ou de son utilisation\u201d[footnote]18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1839(3)<\/a>: \u00ab the term \u201ctrade secret\u201d means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if :(A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and(B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information \u00bb.[\/footnote]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nLa question de la valeur \u00e9conomique propre (independent economic value<\/em>) est centrale \u00e0 la d\u00e9finition. Aucune approche uniforme sur ce point ne semble se d\u00e9gager de la jurisprudence rendue sur les textes \u00e9tatiques similaires pris sur le fondement de l\u2019UTSA[footnote]D. W. Quinto, S. H. Singer, Trade Secrets, Law and Practive, Oxford 2009, p. 10.[\/footnote]. Les tribunaux de certains \u00e9tats exigent une utilisation actuelle et continue de l\u2019information. D\u2019autres d\u00e9duisent la valeur \u00e9conomique de la vigueur avec le secret est maintenu. Pour d\u2019autres encore, l\u2019utilisation par un concurrent ou son enrichissement indu d\u00e9montrent la valeur de l\u2019information. Certaines d\u00e9cisions d\u00e9duisent m\u00eame la valeur \u00e9conomique propre des efforts produits dans le d\u00e9veloppement des \u00e9l\u00e9ments concern\u00e9s[footnote]Ibid.<\/em>, p. 10 et 11, et la jurisprudence cit\u00e9e.[\/footnote].\r\n\r\nLa protection peut ainsi appara\u00eetre comme un compl\u00e9ment ou un substitut envisageable \u00e0 la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 intellectuelle en cas de d\u00e9tournement d\u2019oeuvres ou de cr\u00e9ations techniques avant leur divulgation ou mise sur le march\u00e9.\r\n\r\nCependant la protection est soumise \u00e0 la condition de la prise de mesures de protection suffisantes. Un soci\u00e9t\u00e9 a ainsi pu se voir refuser la protection en cas de d\u00e9tournement de logiciel par des employ\u00e9s, car elle ne s'\u00e9tait pas assur\u00e9e de la suppression des donn\u00e9es concern\u00e9es sur leurs appareils personnels avant leur d\u00e9part de l'entreprise[footnote]DM Trans, LLC v. Scott<\/a>, 38 F.4th 608 (7th Cir. 2022): \"Nevertheless, a human resources manager conducted exit interviews of Scott, Mayer, Hernandez, and Hoffman without asking them to produce their personal devices for inspection, state whether they had company data on those devices, or remove company data. Defendants also maintain that they were willing to return or destroy the information Arrive characterizes as confidential, but they were unable to do so because of a litigation hold. Arrive failed to take basic steps to prevent the individual defendants from possessing its purportedly confidential information. So, the company's claim that their possession qualifies as irreparable harm rings hollow. Arrive could have prevented the claimed harm by taking greater care in executing information-security procedures prior to, or immediately following, the termination of the individual defendants' employment. Even though Arrive failed to do so, the defendants have offered the company the opportunity to remedy the harm by turning over or destroying the information at issue. Arrive has evidently refused that offer. Accordingly, it cannot show irreparable harm arising from the defendants' alleged use of the information claimed to be confidential\".[\/footnote] De m\u00eame, dans une autre affaire, une restriction d'acc\u00e8s par mot de passe \u00e0 des infirmations client confidentielles a \u00e9t\u00e9 jug\u00e9e insuffisante, dans la mesure o\u00f9, dans le m\u00eame temps, l'employeur encourageait ses employ\u00e9s \u00e0 conserver ces informations sur leur t\u00e9l\u00e9phone ou leur ordinateur personnel, o\u00f9 les employ\u00e9s n'avaient pas sign\u00e9 d'accord de confidentialit\u00e9, et o\u00f9 les informations client n'\u00e9taient pas marqu\u00e9es \"confidentielles\" ou d\u00e9sign\u00e9es comme telles aux employ\u00e9s[footnote]Yellowfin Yachts, Inc. v. Barker Boatworks, LLC<\/a>, 898 F.3d 1279, 1299-1301 (11th Cir. 2018).[\/footnote]. L'absence de signature d'un accord de confidentialit\u00e9 semble \u00eatre un \u00e9l\u00e9ment d\u00e9terminant dans l'application ou non de la protection[footnote]Farmers\u2019 Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC<\/a>, 970 F.3d 1027, 1033 (8th Cir. 2020); Pauwels v. Deloitte LLP<\/a>, No. 22-21 (2d Cir. 2023) Docket No. 22-21-cv.[\/footnote].\r\n\r\nLe d\u00e9tournement (misappropriation<\/em>) est d\u00e9fini de mani\u00e8re similaire \u00e0 l\u2019UTSA, comme:\r\n
\r\n\r\n\u00ab\u00a0(A) l\u2019acquisition d\u2019un secret des affaires par une personne qui sait ou a des raisons de savoir que le secret des affaires a \u00e9t\u00e9 acquis par des moyens illicites; ou\r\n\r\n(B) la divulgation ou l\u2019utilisation d\u2019un secret des affaires sans l\u2019accord expr\u00e8s ou implicite par une personne qui\r\n\r\n(i) a mis en oeuvre des moyens illicites pour acqu\u00e9rir la connaissance du secret des affaires;\r\n\r\n(ii) au moment de la divulgation ou de l\u2019utilisation, savait ou avait des raisons de savoir que la connaissance du secret des affaires a \u00e9t\u00e9 (I) obtenue d\u2019une ou au travers d\u2019une personne qui a mis en oeuvre des moyens illicites pour acqu\u00e9rir le secret des affaires; (II) acquise dans des circonstances qui impliquent un devoir de pr\u00e9server la confidentialit\u00e9 du secret des affaires ou limitent l\u2019utilisation du secret des affaires; ou (III) obtenue d\u2019une ou au travers d\u2019une personne qui avait une obligation envers le demandeur de pr\u00e9server le secret du secret des affaires ou de limiter l\u2019utilisation du secret des affaires; ou\r\n\r\n(iii) avant un changement important dans la fonction de la personne, savait ou avait des raisons\u00a0 de savoir que (I) le secret \u00e9tait un secret des affaires; et (II) que la connaissance du secret des affaires a \u00e9t\u00e9 acquise par accident ou erreur \u00bb[footnote]18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1839(5)<\/a>.[\/footnote].\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nL\u2019expression \u00ab\u00a0par des moyens illicites\u00a0\u00bb (improper means<\/em>) inclut \u00ab\u00a0le vol, la corruption, la fausse repr\u00e9sentation (misrepresentation<\/em>), la violation ou l\u2019incitation \u00e0 la violation d\u2019une obligation de pr\u00e9server le secret, ou l\u2019espionnage au travers de moyens \u00e9lectroniques ou autre, et n\u2019inclut pas l\u2019ing\u00e9nierie inverse, l\u2019obtention par des moyens ind\u00e9pendants, ou tout autre moyen licite d\u2019acquisition\u00a0\u00bb[footnote]18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1839(6)<\/a>.[\/footnote]. Jug\u00e9 que le fait de transmettre des informations confidentielles \u00e0 un courriel personnel en violation d'un contrat de travail constitue une utilisation non autoris\u00e9e d'un secret commercial[footnote]TWC Concrete, LLC v. Decarlo<\/a>,\u00a01:23-cv-345 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 30, 2023): \"Next, we turn to TWC's misappropriation of trade secrets claims. \"Because the definition and requirements of both the DTSA and USTA are essentially the same, the Court will consider these federal and state law claims together.\" Meeh. Constr. Managers, LLC v. Paschka,\u00a0No.,\u00a02022 WL 1591605, at *9\u00a0(S.D. Ohio May 19, 2022). TWC-Baker established that it is likely to succeed on its misappropriation of trade secrets claims.\r\n\r\nTo establish a likelihood of success on the misappropriation of trade secrets claims, a plaintiff must show: \"(1) the existence of a trade secret; (2) the acquisition of a trade secret as a result of a confidential relationship; and (3) the unauthorized use of a trade secret.\"\u00a0Heartland Home Fin., Inc. v. Allied Home Mortg. Cap. Corp.,\u00a0258 Fed.Appx. 860, 861\u00a0(6th Cir. 2008). A trade secret is defined by each statute as \"information\" that (1) \"derives\u00a0\u00a0independent economic value\" from not being generally known or readily ascertained by competitors and (2) the owner of the information undergoes reasonable efforts to maintain the information's secrecy.\u00a018 U.S.C. \u00a7 1839(3)(A)-(B);\u00a0Ohio Rev. Code \u00a7 1333.61(D).\u00a0Ohio Rev. Code \u00a7 1333.62(A).\r\n\r\nThe DTSA also requires \"that the trade secret is related to a product or service used in interstate or foreign commerce.\" Noco Co. v. CTEK, Inc., No. 1:19 CV 00853 DCN, 2020 WL 821485, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2020). That said, Defendants do not contest that the trade secrets in question relates to services used in interstate commerce.\r\n\r\n(...) Rather than following this procedure [pr\u00e9vue \u00e0 l'accord de confidentialit\u00e9], DeCarlo, without authorization, forwarded the Financial Statement to his personal email. (Ver. CompL, Doc. 1, \u00b6 66; Jan. 18, 2023 Email, Doc. 16-2, Pg. ID 290.) Such conduct violated the Nonuse and Nondisclosure provision. And other courts applying Ohio law have determined that forwarding confidential information to one's personal email in violation of an employment agreement constitutes the unauthorized use of a trade secret. Shepard and Assoc., Inc. v. Lokring Tech., LLC,<\/em> No. 1:20-CV-2488,2022 WL 312711, at *24-25 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 2, 2022). Thus, for purposes of a temporary restraining order, the Court finds that DeCarlo's use of the 2022 Financial Statement was unauthorized. Therefore, TWC-Baker has established a likelihood of success on the merits of its misappropriation of trade secrets claims at this stage\".[\/footnote].\r\n\r\nSur le plan proc\u00e9dural, une proc\u00e9dure de saisie ex parte<\/em>, inconnue des droits \u00e9tatiques, est pr\u00e9vue, mais uniquement dans des circonstances exceptionnelles. L\u2019\u00e9ventail des rem\u00e8des inclut les injonctions (qui peuvent \u00eatre pr\u00e9liminaires ou finales) et les dommages et int\u00e9r\u00eats (y compris punitifs)[footnote]18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1836(b)(2)(3)<\/a>.[\/footnote].\r\n\r\nLa prescription de l\u2019action est de trois ans \u00e0 compter de la connaissance de l\u2019acte de d\u00e9tournement (ou de la date \u00e0 laquelle il aurait d\u00fb \u00eatre d\u00e9couvert par l\u2019exercice de diligences raisonnables)[footnote]18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1836(d)<\/a>.[\/footnote].\r\n\r\nEnfin, cette loi ne pr\u00e9empte pas les lois \u00e9tatiques dans ce domaine[footnote]18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1838<\/a>: \"Except as provided in section 1833(b), this chapter shall not be construed to preempt or displace any other remedies, whether civil or criminal, provided by United States Federal, State, commonwealth, possession, or territory law for the misappropriation of a trade secret, or to affect the otherwise lawful disclosure of information by any Government employee under section 552 of title 5 (commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act)\".[\/footnote].\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n446._ Le Computer Fraud and Abuse Act_<\/strong> Des sanctions p\u00e9nales et civiles peuvent \u00e9galement \u00eatre prononc\u00e9es pour violation d'un secret dans le cadre du Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, adopt\u00e9 en 1986[footnote]18 U..S.C. \u00a7 1030<\/a>.[\/footnote], qui sanctionne l'acc\u00e8s non autoris\u00e9, ou au-del\u00e0 de l'autorisation donn\u00e9e, et en connaissance de cause, \u00e0 un ordinateur pour obtenir une information confidentielle ou \u00e0 acc\u00e8s restreint. La question de savoir si cette loi peut permettre de sanctionner un employ\u00e9 qui utiliserait un ordinateur auquel il a acc\u00e8s licitement pour obtenir des informations de mani\u00e8re non autoris\u00e9e a divis\u00e9 les tribunaux[footnote]V., faisant le point sur la jurisprudence, T<\/a>eva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandhu<\/a>, 291 F. Supp. 3d 659, 668-71 (E.D. Pa. 2018)[\/footnote]. La Cour Supr\u00eame s'est prononc\u00e9e en 2021 pour une approche restrictive, excluant l'application de l'infraction aux personnes qui ont un acc\u00e8s autoris\u00e9 \u00e0 un ordinateur, \u00e0 une base de donn\u00e9es ou \u00e0 des fichiers, m\u00eame si l'acc\u00e8s aux informations concern\u00e9es est interdit[footnote]Van Buren v. U.S.<\/a>, 141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021).[\/footnote]. Elle a cependant pr\u00e9cis\u00e9 qu'une personne \u00ab d\u00e9passe l'acc\u00e8s autoris\u00e9 \u00bb lorsqu'elle acc\u00e8de \u00e0 un ordinateur avec autorisation, mais qu'elle obtient ensuite des informations situ\u00e9es dans des zones particuli\u00e8res de l'ordinateur, telles que des fichiers, des dossiers ou des bases de donn\u00e9es, qui lui sont interdites.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n447._ <\/strong>Le Protecting American Intellectual Property Act_ <\/strong>Le Protecting Americain Intellectual Property Act (PAIPA) de 2022[footnote]50 U.S.C. \u00a7 1709<\/a>.[\/footnote], promulgu\u00e9 en 2023, a pour objectif de renforcer la protection des actifs intellectuels des personnes et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s exer\u00e7ant aux \u00c9tats-Unis contre les d\u00e9tournements par des personnes ou entit\u00e9s \u00e9trang\u00e8res. La loi impose au Pr\u00e9sident des \u00c9tats-Unis de pr\u00e9senter chaque ann\u00e9e au Congr\u00e8s un rapport identifiant toute personne \u00e9trang\u00e8re qui:\r\n
\r\n\r\n\"(i) a sciemment particip\u00e9 \u00e0 un vol important de secrets commerciaux de personnes des \u00c9tats-Unis, ou en a tir\u00e9 profit, si le vol de ces secrets commerciaux a eu lieu le 5 janvier 2023 ou apr\u00e8s cette date, et est raisonnablement susceptible d'entra\u00eener ou a mat\u00e9riellement contribu\u00e9 \u00e0 une menace importante pour la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale, la politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re, la sant\u00e9 \u00e9conomique ou la stabilit\u00e9 financi\u00e8re des \u00c9tats-Unis ;\r\n(ii) a fourni un soutien financier, mat\u00e9riel ou technologique important, ou des biens ou des services \u00e0 l'appui d'un tel vol ou pour en tirer un avantage significatif ;\r\niii) est une entit\u00e9 qui appartient \u00e0 une personne \u00e9trang\u00e8re identifi\u00e9e en vertu de l'alin\u00e9a (i) ou (ii) ou qui est contr\u00f4l\u00e9e par celle-ci, ou qui a agi ou pr\u00e9tendu agir pour le compte ou au nom d'une personne \u00e9trang\u00e8re identifi\u00e9e en vertu de l'alin\u00e9a (i) ou (ii) ;\r\niv) est le premier dirigeant ou le membre du conseil d'administration d'une entit\u00e9 \u00e9trang\u00e8re identifi\u00e9e en vertu de la division (i) ou (ii) ;\"\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nLe Pr\u00e9sident doit alors imposer au moins cinq sanctions, choisies dans une liste propos\u00e9e par la loi, qui incluent, pour les personnes morales, le gel de certains biens, des interdictions de pr\u00eats par des institutions financi\u00e8res am\u00e9ricaines. des interdictions d'acc\u00e8s aux march\u00e9s publics am\u00e9ricains, et des restrictions sur les investissements dans certaines entit\u00e9s, et pour les personnes physiques concern\u00e9es, des gels de biens et interdictions d'entr\u00e9e aux \u00c9tats-Unis.\r\n\r\n ","rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

442._ Pr\u00e9sentation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale_<\/strong> Aux \u00c9tats-Unis, l\u2019information confidentielle et les secrets commerciaux sont prot\u00e9g\u00e9s par la common law<\/em> et par la loi \u00e9crite. Jusqu\u2019\u00e0 r\u00e9cemment, la loi \u00e9crite n\u2019existait qu\u2019au niveau des \u00c9tats f\u00e9d\u00e9r\u00e9s, dont la quasi-totalit\u00e9 a ratifi\u00e9 l’Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), publi\u00e9 par l’Uniform Law Commission en 1979, qui codifie et compl\u00e8te les principes d\u00e9gag\u00e9s en common law<\/em> dans certains \u00c9tats[1]<\/sup><\/a>. Au niveau f\u00e9d\u00e9ral, certains textes en mati\u00e8re d’espionnage industriel permettaient de sanctionner certains d\u00e9tournements[2]<\/sup><\/a>, mais il n\u2019existait pas de loi g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de protection des secrets des affaires. L’adoption en 2016 du Defend Trade secret Act[3]<\/sup><\/a> a combl\u00e9 cette lacune. Il faut \u00e9galement tenir compte du Computer Fraud and Abuse Act de 1986 et, dans le registre de la lutte contre l’espionnage, du Protecting American Intellectual Property Act de 2023.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

443_ La protection par le droit des torts<\/em> et des contrats_<\/strong> Il semble que le d\u00e9veloppement remarquable de la protection de la vie priv\u00e9e aux \u00c9tats-Unis se soit fait au d\u00e9triment du d\u00e9veloppement d’un tort<\/em> autonome et g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de breach of confidence<\/em>[4]<\/sup><\/a>. La protection de l’information confidentielle est, selon le cas, assur\u00e9e au travers de torts <\/em>ou th\u00e9ories, comme l\u2019invasion of privacy<\/em>, la violation d’un contrat (tortious interference with contracts<\/em>) ou d’une obligation l\u00e9gale, ou au travers d\u2019obligations de confidentialit\u00e9 (donc d\u2019une doctrine de breach of confidence – breach of duty of loyalty or fiduciary duty<\/em>)\u00a0 li\u00e9e \u00e0 des relations particuli\u00e8res (employ\u00e9-employeur, client-avocat, m\u00e9decin patient…). Cette protection en common law<\/em> est assur\u00e9e au niveau des \u00c9tats, et son \u00e9tendue peut donc varier d\u2019un Etat \u00e0 l\u2019autre.<\/p>\n

Le Restatement of Torts de 1939 incluait deux sections sur le secret des affaires. La plupart des tribunaux ont suivi le Restatement, mais il n\u2019a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 de appliqu\u00e9 mani\u00e8re compl\u00e8te ni uniforme. Le Restatement (Second) of Torts de 1978, prenant acte des d\u00e9veloppements l\u00e9gislatifs en cours, n\u2019a pas repris de dispositions sur le secret des affaires. La protection du secret des affaires est d\u00e9sormais vis\u00e9e au Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition de 1995[5]<\/sup><\/a>. Un secret des affaires (trade secret<\/em>) y est d\u00e9fini comme \u00ab\u00a0une information qui peut \u00eatre utilis\u00e9e dans l\u2019exercice d\u2019un commerce ou d\u2019une autre entreprise et qui a une valeur et un caract\u00e8re secret suffisants pour conf\u00e9rer un avantage \u00e9conomique r\u00e9el ou potentiel sur d\u2019autres\u00a0\u00bb[6]<\/sup><\/a>. La responsabilit\u00e9 pour \u00ab\u00a0appropriation of trade secret<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb est d\u00e9finie comme engag\u00e9e par toute personne qui acquiert par des moyens illicites (improper means<\/em>)[7]<\/sup><\/a> une information dont elle sait ou a des raisons de savoir qu\u2019elle constitue un trade secret<\/em>, ou par toute personne qui utilise ou divulgue sans autorisation un trade secret<\/em> dont elle sait qu\u2019il a \u00e9t\u00e9 acquis dans des circonstances impliquant une obligation de confidentialit\u00e9 ou par de moyens illicites[8]<\/sup><\/a>. Une obligation de confidentialit\u00e9 appara\u00eet lorsqu\u2019une personne prend un engagement expr\u00e8s de confidentialit\u00e9 avant divulgation du secret, ou lorque le secret est divulgu\u00e9 dans des circonstances dans lesquelles les relations entre les parties ou d\u2019autre faits permettent de suposer que la personne savait ou avait des rasions de savoir que la divulgation \u00e9tait faite sous condition de confidentialit\u00e9, et que l\u2019autre partie a pu raisonnablement croire que cette personne a consenti \u00e0 cette obligation[9]<\/sup><\/a>. L\u2019obligation de confidentialit\u00e9 est \u00e9galement d\u00e9duite de l\u2019existence d\u2019un contrat de travail, au regard des secrets de fabrique de l\u2019employeur[10]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Le droit des contrats offre \u00e9galement une possibilit\u00e9 de protection, au travers des non disclosure <\/em>ou confidentiality agreements<\/em> ou des clauses correspondantes des contrats, couramment pratiqu\u00e9s aux \u00c9tats-Unis, notamment pendant les phases d\u2019approche et n\u00e9gociation pr\u00e9contractuelles. Des obligations tacites peuvent \u00e9galement \u00eatre d\u00e9duites de certaines circonstances ou relations contractuelles (notamment des relations de travail).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

444._ Les lois \u00e9tatiques et f\u00e9d\u00e9rales_<\/strong> Comme indiqu\u00e9, \u00e0 l’heure actuelle la quasi-totalit\u00e9 des \u00c9tats de l\u2019Union ont adopt\u00e9 (quelquefois avec des modifications) l’Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), publi\u00e9 par l’Uniform Law Commission en 1979 et modifi\u00e9 en 1985, qui codifie et compl\u00e8te les principes d\u00e9gag\u00e9s en common law<\/em>. Son contenu et ses concepts cl\u00e9s, notamment ceux de trade secret<\/em>[11]<\/sup><\/a>, de misappropriation [of a trade secret][12]<\/sup><\/a> et d\u2019improper means[13]<\/sup><\/a> sont proches de ceux du Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition. Les tribunaux de plusieurs \u00c9tats ont consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que l\u2019adoption du Trade Secret Act local pr\u00e9emptait les tort<\/em> de common law<\/em> correspondants[14]<\/sup><\/a>. A noter que ni l\u2019UTSA ni les Restaments applicables ne pr\u00e9voient de sanctions p\u00e9nales, qui peuvent cependant \u00eatre institu\u00e9es dans la l\u00e9gislation locale.<\/p>\n

Au niveau f\u00e9d\u00e9ral un protection du secret des affaires a \u00e9t\u00e9 introduite dans\u00a0 l’Economic Espionage Act de 1996[15]<\/sup><\/a>. Ce texte sanctionne l\u2019espionnage \u00e9conomique (au profit d\u2019une puissance ou organisation \u00e9trang\u00e8re)[16]<\/sup><\/a> et le \u00ab vol de secret des affaires \u00bb (theft of trade secret<\/em>)[17]<\/sup><\/a>. Il ne pr\u00e9voyait \u00e0 l\u2019origine que des sanctions p\u00e9nales. Le Defend Trade Secrets Act de 2016 est venu le compl\u00e9ter en d\u00e9finissant pour la premi\u00e8re fois des sanctions civiles.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

445._ Le Defend Trade Secrets Act de 2016_<\/strong> Le Defend Trade Secrets Act 2016[18]<\/sup><\/a> a \u00e9t\u00e9 promulgu\u00e9 le 11 mai 2016. Il vient parfaire l\u2019arsenal l\u00e9gislatif f\u00e9d\u00e9ral en mati\u00e8re de protection du secret des affaires en introduisant notamment des proc\u00e9dures et des sanctions civiles en cas de vol de secret des affaires[19]<\/sup><\/a>. Il renforce \u00e9galement les sanctions p\u00e9nales applicables[20]<\/sup><\/a> et pr\u00e9voit une immunit\u00e9 pour les lanceurs d\u2019alerte[21]<\/sup><\/a>, ainsi qu\u2019une obligation pour les employeurs de notifier les dispositions de la loi sur l\u2019immunit\u00e9 aux employ\u00e9s concern\u00e9s[22]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

L\u2019action civile n\u2019est ouverte que lorsque le secret des affaires d\u00e9tourn\u00e9 concerne un produit ou un service utilis\u00e9 ou destin\u00e9 \u00e0 \u00eatre utilis\u00e9 dans le commerce inter\u00e9tatique ou avec l\u2019\u00e9tranger[23]<\/sup><\/a>. La loi s’applique \u00e9galement \u00e0 des actes commis en dehors des \u00c9tats Unis si celui qui les commet est une personne physique est un citoyen ou un r\u00e9sident permanent \u00e9tranger des \u00c9tats-Unis, ou une organisation organis\u00e9e en vertu des lois des \u00c9tats-Unis ou d\u2019un \u00c9tat ou d\u2019une subdivision politique de ceux-ci, ou si un acte en application de l\u2019infraction a \u00e9t\u00e9 commis aux \u00c9tats-Unis[24]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Les d\u00e9finitions appliqu\u00e9es sont proches de celles de l\u2019UTSA. Le secret des affaires est tout d\u2019abord d\u00e9fini comme suit :<\/p>\n

\n

\u00ab\u00a0le terme \u201csecret des affaires\u201d d\u00e9signe tout forme et tout type d\u2019information financi\u00e8re, commerciale, scientifique, technique, \u00e9conomique ou d\u2019ing\u00e9nierie, incluant les mod\u00e8les, les plans, les compilations, les programmes d\u2019appareils, formules, designs, prototypes, m\u00e9thodes, techniques, proc\u00e9d\u00e9s, proc\u00e9dures, programmes, ou codes, mat\u00e9riels ou immat\u00e9riels, de quelque fa\u00e7on qu\u2019ils soient conserv\u00e9s, compil\u00e9s, ou m\u00e9moris\u00e9s, sous forme physique, \u00e9lectronique, graphique, photographique ou par \u00e9crit si:<\/p>\n

(A) leur propri\u00e9taire a pris des mesures raisonnables pour en conserver le caract\u00e8re secret; et si<\/p>\n

(B) l\u2019information tient une valeur \u00e9conomique propre, actuelle ou potentielle, du fait de ne pas \u00eatre connue de, et de ne pas \u00eatre facilement accessible par des moyens licites par, une personne qui peut retirer une valeur \u00e9conomique de sa divulgation ou de son utilisation\u201d[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

La question de la valeur \u00e9conomique propre (independent economic value<\/em>) est centrale \u00e0 la d\u00e9finition. Aucune approche uniforme sur ce point ne semble se d\u00e9gager de la jurisprudence rendue sur les textes \u00e9tatiques similaires pris sur le fondement de l\u2019UTSA[26]<\/sup><\/a>. Les tribunaux de certains \u00e9tats exigent une utilisation actuelle et continue de l\u2019information. D\u2019autres d\u00e9duisent la valeur \u00e9conomique de la vigueur avec le secret est maintenu. Pour d\u2019autres encore, l\u2019utilisation par un concurrent ou son enrichissement indu d\u00e9montrent la valeur de l\u2019information. Certaines d\u00e9cisions d\u00e9duisent m\u00eame la valeur \u00e9conomique propre des efforts produits dans le d\u00e9veloppement des \u00e9l\u00e9ments concern\u00e9s[27]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

La protection peut ainsi appara\u00eetre comme un compl\u00e9ment ou un substitut envisageable \u00e0 la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 intellectuelle en cas de d\u00e9tournement d\u2019oeuvres ou de cr\u00e9ations techniques avant leur divulgation ou mise sur le march\u00e9.<\/p>\n

Cependant la protection est soumise \u00e0 la condition de la prise de mesures de protection suffisantes. Un soci\u00e9t\u00e9 a ainsi pu se voir refuser la protection en cas de d\u00e9tournement de logiciel par des employ\u00e9s, car elle ne s’\u00e9tait pas assur\u00e9e de la suppression des donn\u00e9es concern\u00e9es sur leurs appareils personnels avant leur d\u00e9part de l’entreprise[28]<\/sup><\/a> De m\u00eame, dans une autre affaire, une restriction d’acc\u00e8s par mot de passe \u00e0 des infirmations client confidentielles a \u00e9t\u00e9 jug\u00e9e insuffisante, dans la mesure o\u00f9, dans le m\u00eame temps, l’employeur encourageait ses employ\u00e9s \u00e0 conserver ces informations sur leur t\u00e9l\u00e9phone ou leur ordinateur personnel, o\u00f9 les employ\u00e9s n’avaient pas sign\u00e9 d’accord de confidentialit\u00e9, et o\u00f9 les informations client n’\u00e9taient pas marqu\u00e9es \u00ab\u00a0confidentielles\u00a0\u00bb ou d\u00e9sign\u00e9es comme telles aux employ\u00e9s[29]<\/sup><\/a>. L’absence de signature d’un accord de confidentialit\u00e9 semble \u00eatre un \u00e9l\u00e9ment d\u00e9terminant dans l’application ou non de la protection[30]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Le d\u00e9tournement (misappropriation<\/em>) est d\u00e9fini de mani\u00e8re similaire \u00e0 l\u2019UTSA, comme:<\/p>\n

\n

\u00ab\u00a0(A) l\u2019acquisition d\u2019un secret des affaires par une personne qui sait ou a des raisons de savoir que le secret des affaires a \u00e9t\u00e9 acquis par des moyens illicites; ou<\/p>\n

(B) la divulgation ou l\u2019utilisation d\u2019un secret des affaires sans l\u2019accord expr\u00e8s ou implicite par une personne qui<\/p>\n

(i) a mis en oeuvre des moyens illicites pour acqu\u00e9rir la connaissance du secret des affaires;<\/p>\n

(ii) au moment de la divulgation ou de l\u2019utilisation, savait ou avait des raisons de savoir que la connaissance du secret des affaires a \u00e9t\u00e9 (I) obtenue d\u2019une ou au travers d\u2019une personne qui a mis en oeuvre des moyens illicites pour acqu\u00e9rir le secret des affaires; (II) acquise dans des circonstances qui impliquent un devoir de pr\u00e9server la confidentialit\u00e9 du secret des affaires ou limitent l\u2019utilisation du secret des affaires; ou (III) obtenue d\u2019une ou au travers d\u2019une personne qui avait une obligation envers le demandeur de pr\u00e9server le secret du secret des affaires ou de limiter l\u2019utilisation du secret des affaires; ou<\/p>\n

(iii) avant un changement important dans la fonction de la personne, savait ou avait des raisons\u00a0 de savoir que (I) le secret \u00e9tait un secret des affaires; et (II) que la connaissance du secret des affaires a \u00e9t\u00e9 acquise par accident ou erreur \u00bb[31]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

L\u2019expression \u00ab\u00a0par des moyens illicites\u00a0\u00bb (improper means<\/em>) inclut \u00ab\u00a0le vol, la corruption, la fausse repr\u00e9sentation (misrepresentation<\/em>), la violation ou l\u2019incitation \u00e0 la violation d\u2019une obligation de pr\u00e9server le secret, ou l\u2019espionnage au travers de moyens \u00e9lectroniques ou autre, et n\u2019inclut pas l\u2019ing\u00e9nierie inverse, l\u2019obtention par des moyens ind\u00e9pendants, ou tout autre moyen licite d\u2019acquisition\u00a0\u00bb[32]<\/sup><\/a>. Jug\u00e9 que le fait de transmettre des informations confidentielles \u00e0 un courriel personnel en violation d’un contrat de travail constitue une utilisation non autoris\u00e9e d’un secret commercial[33]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Sur le plan proc\u00e9dural, une proc\u00e9dure de saisie ex parte<\/em>, inconnue des droits \u00e9tatiques, est pr\u00e9vue, mais uniquement dans des circonstances exceptionnelles. L\u2019\u00e9ventail des rem\u00e8des inclut les injonctions (qui peuvent \u00eatre pr\u00e9liminaires ou finales) et les dommages et int\u00e9r\u00eats (y compris punitifs)[34]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

La prescription de l\u2019action est de trois ans \u00e0 compter de la connaissance de l\u2019acte de d\u00e9tournement (ou de la date \u00e0 laquelle il aurait d\u00fb \u00eatre d\u00e9couvert par l\u2019exercice de diligences raisonnables)[35]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Enfin, cette loi ne pr\u00e9empte pas les lois \u00e9tatiques dans ce domaine[36]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

446._ Le Computer Fraud and Abuse Act_<\/strong> Des sanctions p\u00e9nales et civiles peuvent \u00e9galement \u00eatre prononc\u00e9es pour violation d’un secret dans le cadre du Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, adopt\u00e9 en 1986[37]<\/sup><\/a>, qui sanctionne l’acc\u00e8s non autoris\u00e9, ou au-del\u00e0 de l’autorisation donn\u00e9e, et en connaissance de cause, \u00e0 un ordinateur pour obtenir une information confidentielle ou \u00e0 acc\u00e8s restreint. La question de savoir si cette loi peut permettre de sanctionner un employ\u00e9 qui utiliserait un ordinateur auquel il a acc\u00e8s licitement pour obtenir des informations de mani\u00e8re non autoris\u00e9e a divis\u00e9 les tribunaux[38]<\/sup><\/a>. La Cour Supr\u00eame s’est prononc\u00e9e en 2021 pour une approche restrictive, excluant l’application de l’infraction aux personnes qui ont un acc\u00e8s autoris\u00e9 \u00e0 un ordinateur, \u00e0 une base de donn\u00e9es ou \u00e0 des fichiers, m\u00eame si l’acc\u00e8s aux informations concern\u00e9es est interdit[39]<\/sup><\/a>. Elle a cependant pr\u00e9cis\u00e9 qu’une personne \u00ab d\u00e9passe l’acc\u00e8s autoris\u00e9 \u00bb lorsqu’elle acc\u00e8de \u00e0 un ordinateur avec autorisation, mais qu’elle obtient ensuite des informations situ\u00e9es dans des zones particuli\u00e8res de l’ordinateur, telles que des fichiers, des dossiers ou des bases de donn\u00e9es, qui lui sont interdites.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

447._ <\/strong>Le Protecting American Intellectual Property Act_ <\/strong>Le Protecting Americain Intellectual Property Act (PAIPA) de 2022[40]<\/sup><\/a>, promulgu\u00e9 en 2023, a pour objectif de renforcer la protection des actifs intellectuels des personnes et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s exer\u00e7ant aux \u00c9tats-Unis contre les d\u00e9tournements par des personnes ou entit\u00e9s \u00e9trang\u00e8res. La loi impose au Pr\u00e9sident des \u00c9tats-Unis de pr\u00e9senter chaque ann\u00e9e au Congr\u00e8s un rapport identifiant toute personne \u00e9trang\u00e8re qui:<\/p>\n

\n

\u00ab\u00a0(i) a sciemment particip\u00e9 \u00e0 un vol important de secrets commerciaux de personnes des \u00c9tats-Unis, ou en a tir\u00e9 profit, si le vol de ces secrets commerciaux a eu lieu le 5 janvier 2023 ou apr\u00e8s cette date, et est raisonnablement susceptible d’entra\u00eener ou a mat\u00e9riellement contribu\u00e9 \u00e0 une menace importante pour la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale, la politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re, la sant\u00e9 \u00e9conomique ou la stabilit\u00e9 financi\u00e8re des \u00c9tats-Unis ;
\n(ii) a fourni un soutien financier, mat\u00e9riel ou technologique important, ou des biens ou des services \u00e0 l’appui d’un tel vol ou pour en tirer un avantage significatif ;
\niii) est une entit\u00e9 qui appartient \u00e0 une personne \u00e9trang\u00e8re identifi\u00e9e en vertu de l’alin\u00e9a (i) ou (ii) ou qui est contr\u00f4l\u00e9e par celle-ci, ou qui a agi ou pr\u00e9tendu agir pour le compte ou au nom d’une personne \u00e9trang\u00e8re identifi\u00e9e en vertu de l’alin\u00e9a (i) ou (ii) ;
\niv) est le premier dirigeant ou le membre du conseil d’administration d’une entit\u00e9 \u00e9trang\u00e8re identifi\u00e9e en vertu de la division (i) ou (ii) ;\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Le Pr\u00e9sident doit alors imposer au moins cinq sanctions, choisies dans une liste propos\u00e9e par la loi, qui incluent, pour les personnes morales, le gel de certains biens, des interdictions de pr\u00eats par des institutions financi\u00e8res am\u00e9ricaines. des interdictions d’acc\u00e8s aux march\u00e9s publics am\u00e9ricains, et des restrictions sur les investissements dans certaines entit\u00e9s, et pour les personnes physiques concern\u00e9es, des gels de biens et interdictions d’entr\u00e9e aux \u00c9tats-Unis.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

  1. Uniform Trade Secret Act<\/a>, v. infra<\/em>, n\u00b0444. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  2. Notamment l'Economic Espionage Act de 1996 et le Protecting American IP Act 2023, v. infra<\/em>, n\u00b0444 et 447. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  3. Public Law No 114-153<\/a>, v. infra<\/em>, n\u00b0 445. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  4. N. M. Richards, D. J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 97, 2007, p. 123. K. B. Remick, Breach of Confidence - The Need for a New Tort - Watts v. Cumberland County Hospital System, Campbell Law Review, Vol. 8, Iss. 1[1985], 145\u00a0; B. C. Murchison, Reflections on Breach of Confidence from the U.S. Experience, 15 Media & Arts L. Rev. 295 (2010)\u00a0; A. B. Vickery, Breach of Confidence: An Emerging Tort, 82 Colum. L . Rev. 1426 (1982). ↵<\/a><\/li>
  5. Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition<\/a>, \u00a7\u00a7 39 \u00e0 45. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  6. Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition<\/a>, \u00a739: \u00ab\u00a0A trade secret is any information that can be used in the operation of a business or other enterprise and that is sufficiently valuable and secret to afford an actual or potential economic advantage over others\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  7. D\u00e9finis au \u00a7 43 comme suit: \u00ab\u00a0\u201cImproper\u201d means of acquiring another's trade secret under the rule stated in \u00a7 40 include theft, fraud, unauthorized interception of communications, inducement of or knowing participation in a breach of confidence, and other means either wrongful in themselves or wrongful under the circumstances of the case. Independent discovery and analysis of publicly available products or information are not improper means of acquisition\u00a0\u00bb. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  8. Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition<\/a>, \u00a7 40. \u00ab\u00a0One is subject to liability for the appropriation of another's trade secret if:(a) the actor acquires by means that are improper under the rule stated in \u00a7 43 information that the actor knows or has reason to know is the other's trade secret; or(b) the actor uses or discloses the other's trade secret without the other's consent and, at the time of the use or disclosure,(1) the actor knows or has reason to know that the information is a trade secret that the actor acquired under circumstances creating a duty of confidence owed by the actor to the other under the rule stated in \u00a7 41; or(2) the actor knows or has reason to know that the information is a trade secret that the actor acquired by means that are improper under the rule stated in \u00a7 43; or(3) the actor knows or has reason to know that the information is a trade secret that the actor acquired from or through a person who acquired it by means that are improper under the rule stated in \u00a7 43 or whose disclosure of the trade secret constituted a breach of a duty of confidence owed to the other under the rule stated in \u00a7 41; or(4) the actor knows or has reason to know that the information is a trade secret that the actor acquired through an accident or mistake, unless the acquisition was the result of the other's failure to take reasonable precautions to maintain the secrecy of the information\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  9. Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition<\/a>, \u00a7 41: \"A person to whom a trade secret has been disclosed owes a duty of confidence to the owner of the trade secret for purposes of the rule stated in \u00a7 40 if: (a) the person made an express promise of confidentiality prior to the disclosure of the trade secret; or (b) the trade secret was disclosed to the person under circumstances in which the relationship between the parties to the disclosure or the other facts surrounding the disclosure justify the conclusions that, at the time of the disclosure, (1) the person knew or had reason to know that the disclosure was intended to be in confidence, and (2) the other party to the disclosure was reasonable in inferring that the person consented to an obligation of confidentiality\". ↵<\/a><\/li>
  10. Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition<\/a>, \u00a7 42: \"An employee or former employee who uses or discloses a trade secret owned by the employer or former employer in breach of a duty of confidence is subject to liability for appropriation of the trade secret under the rule stated in \u00a7 40\". ↵<\/a><\/li>
  11. Uniform Trade Secrets Act<\/a>, \u00a7 1(4)\u00a0: \u00ab\u00a0\"Trade secret\" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy\u00a0\u00bb. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  12. Uniform Trade Secrets Ac<\/a>t, \u00a7 1(2)\u00a0: \u00ab\u00a0\"Misappropriation\" means: (i) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (ii) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who (A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (B) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was (I) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; (II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or 5 (C) before a material change of his [or her] 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\u00a0\u00bb. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  13. Uniform Trade Secrets Act, \u00a7 1(2)\u00a0: \u00ab\u00a0\"Improper means\" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means\u00a0\u00bb. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  14. Chisum, p. 208. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  15. 18 USC \u00a7\u00a7 1831-1839<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  16. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1831<\/a>: \"(a) In General. Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly : (1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret; (2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret; (3) receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; (4) attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3); or\r\n(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,\r\nshall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.\r\n(b) Organizations. Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than the greater of $10,000,000 or 3 times the value of the stolen trade secret to the organization, including expenses for research and design and other costs of reproducing the trade secret that the organization has thereby avoided\". ↵<\/a><\/li>
  17. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1832<\/a>: \"(a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly: (1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information; (2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information; (3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; (4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or (5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,\r\nshall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.\r\n(b) Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than the greater of $5,000,000 or 3 times the value of the stolen trade secret to the organization, including expenses for research and design and other costs of reproducing the trade secret that the organization has thereby avoided\". ↵<\/a><\/li>
  18. Public Law No 114-153<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  19. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1836(b)<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  20. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1832<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  21. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1833<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  22. Sous peine de ne pouvoir recouvrer des dommages et int\u00e9r\u00eats punitifs et des frais d\u2019avocats en cas d\u2019action sur le fondement de la loi contre ces employ\u00e9s. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1833(b)(3)<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  23. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1836(b)(1)<\/a>: \"An owner of a trade secret that is misappropriated may bring a civil action under this subsection if the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce\". Cette condition est conforme \u00e0 la clause de commerce. Elle n'est pas tr\u00e8s exigeante dans la mesure o\u00f9 le secret peut n\u2019\u00eatre que \u00ab destin\u00e9 \u00bb \u00e0 une utilisation inter\u00e9tatique, et o\u00f9 la plupart des secrets satisfont \u00e0 cette condition. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  24. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1837<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  25. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1839(3)<\/a>: \u00ab the term \u201ctrade secret\u201d means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if :(A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and(B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information \u00bb. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  26. D. W. Quinto, S. H. Singer, Trade Secrets, Law and Practive, Oxford 2009, p. 10. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  27. Ibid.<\/em>, p. 10 et 11, et la jurisprudence cit\u00e9e. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  28. DM Trans, LLC v. Scott<\/a>, 38 F.4th 608 (7th Cir. 2022): \"Nevertheless, a human resources manager conducted exit interviews of Scott, Mayer, Hernandez, and Hoffman without asking them to produce their personal devices for inspection, state whether they had company data on those devices, or remove company data. Defendants also maintain that they were willing to return or destroy the information Arrive characterizes as confidential, but they were unable to do so because of a litigation hold. Arrive failed to take basic steps to prevent the individual defendants from possessing its purportedly confidential information. So, the company's claim that their possession qualifies as irreparable harm rings hollow. Arrive could have prevented the claimed harm by taking greater care in executing information-security procedures prior to, or immediately following, the termination of the individual defendants' employment. Even though Arrive failed to do so, the defendants have offered the company the opportunity to remedy the harm by turning over or destroying the information at issue. Arrive has evidently refused that offer. Accordingly, it cannot show irreparable harm arising from the defendants' alleged use of the information claimed to be confidential\". ↵<\/a><\/li>
  29. Yellowfin Yachts, Inc. v. Barker Boatworks, LLC<\/a>, 898 F.3d 1279, 1299-1301 (11th Cir. 2018). ↵<\/a><\/li>
  30. Farmers\u2019 Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC<\/a>, 970 F.3d 1027, 1033 (8th Cir. 2020); Pauwels v. Deloitte LLP<\/a>, No. 22-21 (2d Cir. 2023) Docket No. 22-21-cv. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  31. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1839(5)<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  32. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1839(6)<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  33. TWC Concrete, LLC v. Decarlo<\/a>,\u00a01:23-cv-345 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 30, 2023): \"Next, we turn to TWC's misappropriation of trade secrets claims. \"Because the definition and requirements of both the DTSA and USTA are essentially the same, the Court will consider these federal and state law claims together.\" Meeh. Constr. Managers, LLC v. Paschka,\u00a0No.,\u00a02022 WL 1591605, at *9\u00a0(S.D. Ohio May 19, 2022). TWC-Baker established that it is likely to succeed on its misappropriation of trade secrets claims.\r\n\r\nTo establish a likelihood of success on the misappropriation of trade secrets claims, a plaintiff must show: \"(1) the existence of a trade secret; (2) the acquisition of a trade secret as a result of a confidential relationship; and (3) the unauthorized use of a trade secret.\"\u00a0Heartland Home Fin., Inc. v. Allied Home Mortg. Cap. Corp.,\u00a0258 Fed.Appx. 860, 861\u00a0(6th Cir. 2008). A trade secret is defined by each statute as \"information\" that (1) \"derives\u00a0\u00a0independent economic value\" from not being generally known or readily ascertained by competitors and (2) the owner of the information undergoes reasonable efforts to maintain the information's secrecy.\u00a018 U.S.C. \u00a7 1839(3)(A)-(B);\u00a0Ohio Rev. Code \u00a7 1333.61(D).\u00a0Ohio Rev. Code \u00a7 1333.62(A).\r\n\r\nThe DTSA also requires \"that the trade secret is related to a product or service used in interstate or foreign commerce.\" Noco Co. v. CTEK, Inc., No. 1:19 CV 00853 DCN, 2020 WL 821485, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2020). That said, Defendants do not contest that the trade secrets in question relates to services used in interstate commerce.\r\n\r\n(...) Rather than following this procedure [pr\u00e9vue \u00e0 l'accord de confidentialit\u00e9], DeCarlo, without authorization, forwarded the Financial Statement to his personal email. (Ver. CompL, Doc. 1, \u00b6 66; Jan. 18, 2023 Email, Doc. 16-2, Pg. ID 290.) Such conduct violated the Nonuse and Nondisclosure provision. And other courts applying Ohio law have determined that forwarding confidential information to one's personal email in violation of an employment agreement constitutes the unauthorized use of a trade secret. Shepard and Assoc., Inc. v. Lokring Tech., LLC,<\/em> No. 1:20-CV-2488,2022 WL 312711, at *24-25 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 2, 2022). Thus, for purposes of a temporary restraining order, the Court finds that DeCarlo's use of the 2022 Financial Statement was unauthorized. Therefore, TWC-Baker has established a likelihood of success on the merits of its misappropriation of trade secrets claims at this stage\". ↵<\/a><\/li>
  34. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1836(b)(2)(3)<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  35. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1836(d)<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  36. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1838<\/a>: \"Except as provided in section 1833(b), this chapter shall not be construed to preempt or displace any other remedies, whether civil or criminal, provided by United States Federal, State, commonwealth, possession, or territory law for the misappropriation of a trade secret, or to affect the otherwise lawful disclosure of information by any Government employee under section 552 of title 5 (commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act)\". ↵<\/a><\/li>
  37. 18 U..S.C. \u00a7 1030<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  38. V., faisant le point sur la jurisprudence, T<\/a>eva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandhu<\/a>, 291 F. Supp. 3d 659, 668-71 (E.D. Pa. 2018) ↵<\/a><\/li>
  39. Van Buren v. U.S.<\/a>, 141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021). ↵<\/a><\/li>
  40. 50 U.S.C. \u00a7 1709<\/a>. ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":1,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"part":67,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.droitangloamericaindespi.com\/brevets\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/102"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.droitangloamericaindespi.com\/brevets\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.droitangloamericaindespi.com\/brevets\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.droitangloamericaindespi.com\/brevets\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"version-history":[{"count":29,"href":"https:\/\/www.droitangloamericaindespi.com\/brevets\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/102\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":606,"href":"https:\/\/www.droitangloamericaindespi.com\/brevets\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/102\/revisions\/606"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.droitangloamericaindespi.com\/brevets\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/67"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.droitangloamericaindespi.com\/brevets\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/102\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.droitangloamericaindespi.com\/brevets\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.droitangloamericaindespi.com\/brevets\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=102"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.droitangloamericaindespi.com\/brevets\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=102"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.droitangloamericaindespi.com\/brevets\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}