(1) Taking a trade secret without the consent of its owner by improper means, or using the secret by the taker; In this regard, it does not matter whether the secret was taken from the owner or from another person in whose knowledge the trade secret is found;
(2) Use of a trade secret without the consent of its owner when the use is contrary to a contractual obligation or a fiduciary duty imposed on the user towards the owner of the secret.
(3) Receiving or using a trade secret without the consent of its owner, when the recipient or user knows or is apparently apparent, at the time of receipt or use, that the secret has been transferred to him in a manner prohibited by paragraphs (1) or (2), or that the secret has been transferred to any other person in such prohibited manner before it reached him."
- Section 7 of the Law establishes limitations to liability, as follows -
“)a) A person shall not be liable for a trade secret if one of the following exists:
(1) The knowledge inherent in the trade secret came to him during his work for the owner of the trade secret and this knowledge became part of his general professional skills;
(2) The use of the trade secret is justified due to public policy.
(b) If a person makes use of the trade secret as stated in subsection (a)(2) and subsequently gains a benefit, the court may, if it deems that this is justified in the circumstances of the case, oblige him to return the benefit in whole or in part to the owner of the secret."
- Section 10 of the Law establishes a presumption of use, according to which:
"The defendant is presumed to have used the trade secret owned by the plaintiff, if two of the following were true:
(1) The trade secret came to the defendant's attention or had access to it;
(2) The information used by the defendant is substantially similar to the information that bears the trade secret."
- In the matter of Labor Appeal (National) 164/99 Dan Fromer vs. Redgard, PDA 34 294 [Nevo] (1999), it was held that:
"'Trade secret' is not a magic word. An employer claiming the existence of a 'trade secret' must prove its existence. In other words, he must describe and detail what the secret is. It is not sufficient to have a general description or a general claim about the existence of a 'secret', as happened in this case, but to point to, for example, software, formula, a certain formula, a certain customer list, a certain process, etc. As part of proving the 'trade secret', the previous employer must also prove its scope and the time it must remain a 'secret'. Moreover, the previous employer must prove that it is a 'secret' and that it has taken reasonable measures to ensure the protection of the trade secret, such as: exposing it to employees who need it for their work and not exposing it to other employees or keeping the material in a protected place."