A developer contracted a university researcher to improve the services he was working on to identify the carriers of the Covid-19 pandemic. The developer contended that the researcher had stolen the invention, while the researcher contended that the information was in the public domain because it was included in a patent application.
The Court held that the researcher's actions amounted to trade secret theft. Trade secret theft is the taking or use of a trade secret without the owner's consent. There is a presumption of use when the thief had access to the trade secret and when the information he uses is substantially similar to the information that is the subject of the trade secret. However, information shall not be deemed a trade secret if it is in the public domain. Information may be deemed public domain when the inventor included details about it as part of a patent application. Here, it is an invention that required contemplation so that the researcher could not have invented it in a short time. Further, it relied on publications that were not in the public domain and which were substantially similar to the developer's invention. In addition, the invention was developed after the disclosure to the developer. Therefore, the researcher's actions amount to trade secret theft and the mere fact that the information was included in the patent application does not cure the use of confidential information prior to the theft.