An employee cannot learn information that belongs to a former employer. The "inevitable doctrine of revelation" is a notion of art in the law of business secrecy. The doctrine applies when a former employee, who knows the employer`s trade secrets and confidential information, assumes a similar role with the employer`s competitor. In Utilisave, LLC v. Miele, the Third Court of Appeal, upheld the introduction of an injunction after teaching. The injunction was based on the significant overlap between the former employee`s former workstation and his new workplace, which played much the same role in the same area for the same geographic area. By this type of overlap, the court found that the former employee would likely use confidential information and trade secrets to the detriment of his former employer. The injunction was justified, although there was no misappropriation of certain trade secrets or confidential information. Bradley planned his departure long before announcing it. During the planning phase, Bradley sent confidential information from the Bemis system to a non-Bemis cloud storage provider. Bradley also began removing materials from his work computer and downloading them to a personal external storage drive. When Bradley resigned, he told Bemis that he and his wife were planning to go into real estate. Then Bradley removed even more confidential and proprietary documents containing trade secrets.
Unknown to Bemis, Bradley did not go into real estate. He had taken a position at Winpak, Bemis`s competitor. When Bemis found out Bradley was working for a competitor, Bemis did a forensic analysis of Bradley`s computers and learned of Bradley`s activities before resigning. As part of the bankruptcy proceedings, TKC used the Alaska verdict to consider that the $20 million in debt after a summary verdict is not discharged. Charles appealed to the district court and lost. But the 4th Circle Court of Appeal quashed the case and remanded him in custody for a more in-depth trial. The fourth arrondissement found that a judgment on the embezzlement of trade secrets under the Bankruptcy Act can only be made possible if the embezzlement is both intentional and malicious. The Arizona verdict did not make those findings against Charles. Nor was the Alaska verdict the source of these findings. Neither the Arizona decision nor the Alaska judgment could therefore be used to determine whether the guilt of embezzlement of trade secrecy was not releaseable. The factual pattern behind this complaint is relatively common in the "world of trade secrets hijacking." Advanced Fluid Systems, Inc.
("AFS") manufactures hydraulic fluid systems that move heavy machinery for complex operations and technical projects. In September 2009, AFS entered into a contract with the Virginia Commonwealth Space Flight Authority to maintain a hydraulic system for a NASA missile launch system on Wallops Island, Virginia. The contract stipulated that all materials produced during the performance of the contract were "exclusive property" of the Authority.