ARTICLE
10 November 2014

When It Comes To Confidentiality Agreements, Just Getting The Signature Is Not Enough

FL
Foley & Lardner

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.
Automotive suppliers and other manufacturers frequently have to share their valuable intellectual property with third parties.
United States Intellectual Property

Automotive suppliers and other manufacturers frequently have to share their valuable intellectual property with third parties. A supplier might need to share CAD files with another supplier to ensure that the finished product works, or a business that has designed a product may outsource the manufacturing to a business that can better handle production. Parties to such arrangements frequently sign a confidentiality agreement forbidding disclosure or unauthorized use of the design before proceeding with their arrangement. But is the confidentiality agreement ironclad at that point?

Not necessarily. In nClosures, Inc. v. Block & Co., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Illinois law, held that a confidentiality agreement entered into between a product designer and manufacturer was unenforceable, because the owner of the confidential information had not taken reasonable steps to protect its confidentiality.

According to the ruling, nClosures designed cases for electronic tablets and other devices, and entered into an agreement with Block to manufacture those cases. As part of that process, the parties entered into a confidentiality agreement covering nClosures's designs. Five months after nClosures's device went on sale, Block released its own competing product. Litigation followed.

Block moved for summary judgment on each of nClosures's claims, including nClosures's claims for trade secret misappropriation breach of the confidentiality agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment on each claim, holding in part that nClosures could not enforce its confidentiality agreement because it had not taken reasonable steps to protect its design. The Seventh Circuit stated that nClosures had not entered into confidentiality agreements with other people who had accessed the designs of the cases, had not marked the design drawings as confidential or proprietary when they were transmitted to Block, and had not limited access to the designs (either electronically or by lock-and-key). Thus, even though nClosures claimed to have a general policy of confidentiality of the design information, it had not taken reasonable efforts to maintain its confidentiality, and its confidentiality agreement with Block was unenforceable.

nClosures provides a valuable reminder to trade secret owners that obtaining confidentiality agreements—while important—is not enough to protect the confidentiality of those trade secrets. Vigilance during the lifespan of a trade secret is needed, because even if lapses in trade secret protection are not directly related to a confidentiality agreement, the enforceability of that agreement can be lost.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More