- Court: Intellectual Property Archives
- Area(s) of Law: Trade Secrets
- Date Filed: 05-21-2013
- Case #: 2:12-cv-342
- Judge(s)/Court Below: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
- LexisNexis Citation: 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72057
- Westlaw Citation: 2013 WL 2243744
Opinion (Michael Watson): This is a motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim made by Cognizant Technology Solutions (Cognizant). Kuvendina and Cognizant Technology Solutions (Cognizant) worked together to provide technological solutions to their clients. Kuvendina claimed that Cognizant misappropriated trade secrets. According to Ohio law the elements of a claim for misappropriation are: (1) existence of a trade secret; (2)acquisition of the trade secret as a result of a confidential relationship; (3) unauthorized use of a trade secret. Cognizant claimed that Kuvendina did not meet these elements in their claim. In analyzing the claim the court explained that a trade secret is something of economic value that are not readily ascertainable. The court found that the customers lists could count as trade secrets. In the second element the court stated that companies do not have to enter into a specific contractual promise to have a duty not to use or divulge confidential information. Finally the court stated that all Kuvedina had to do to satisfy this final element is to claim that Cognizant misused the trade secrets and the court found that they had made that claim. Because the court found that all three elements were met the court DENIED the motion to dismiss.