Dh Vs Usa Case Study

ARGUMENT
UNDER THE OHIO UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT (“OUTSA), A COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT, DERVIVES INDEPENDENT ECONOMIC VALUE, IS NOT BEING GENERALY KNOWN TO OTHER PERSONS, AND IS SUNBJECT TO EFFORTS OF SECRECY IS A TRADE SECRET.
I. DCH is entitled to preliminary injunction, because LH is a trade secret under OUTSA.
Preliminary injunctions should always be granted in case as like this, where there is a substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs will prevail on the merits. Vanguard Transp. Sys. V. Edwards Transfer & Storage Co. Gen. Commodities Div., 673 N.E.2d 182. (184). The burden of proof to establish this element of a preliminary injunction motion is by showing clear and convincing evidence. Id. The injunction can remain in effect until LH is no longer a trade secret. ORC s1333.62. Plaintiff DCH's Motion for Preliminary Injunction for LH should be granted because the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of LH being a trade secret under the OUTSA.
II. LH meets the criteria of element one of information that derives independent economic value.
Plaintiff has a cause of action for a violation of the OUTSA because Defendant took his
copy of the program manual and used it to start his own company (Doe Inc.) and sold the program to competing law firms. Defendant is going to say that the program was readily ascertainable by proper means and thus LH is not a trade secret under the act. However we will prove that LH was not readily ascertainable and that plaintiff took all the necessary steps to try and maintain the secrecy and thus the economic value that was created by the use of LH.
LH meets element one, which is that the trade secret must "derives independent economic value." Ohio Rev. Code Ann § 1333.61(D) (LexisNexis 20xx). Applying element one, the Tenth District Court of Appeals has held that a computer software program that provided the assembly records for custom built trucks, is a trade secret when the program helps to derive independent economic value to the franchisor by making it more difficult for competitors to know which parts go on each truck. Mack trucks, Inc. v. Motor Vehicle Dealers Bd., 2006-Ohio-2748 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). The computer program also contained a list of the most common parts on the trucks, which would lead to reverse engineering and diminish the profitability of the company. Id. At 18. The program cost Mack $34 million to produce which is a large amount of money for a computer program. Id.
The Supreme Court held , that " the amount of effort or money expended in obtaining and developing the information, as well as the amount of time and expense it would take for others to acquire and duplicate the information," may be considered in determining whether information is a trade secret.
Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden, 707 N.E.2d 853, (Ohio 1999). The court found that the client list could be a trade secret, and defeated the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, because it was used to produce an economic value to the competitor by allowing them to solicit new clients to thee firm. Id.at 862. The client list contained hundreds of names, numbers, and address of clients, which took a considerable amount of time and expense to create. Id.at 862-63. The court held that the client list was a trade secret under the
OUTSA. In the present case, the first element of the OUTSA is met by LH. Defendant spent 6 months time and was paid an annual salary of $97,500 to create the program. As in Mack, there was a large amount of money, compared to the size of the enterprise, large corporation compared to a small law firm, that was put in to the development of the program. 2006-Ohio-2748 at 18. As in Siegel, there was a significant investment of time used to develop the trade secret. 707 N.E.2d 853. LH also allowed DCH to win several large projects and reduces cost by hiring fewer associates, and thus meets element one of OUTSA.