We live in a competitive world. The extent to which a company is able to protect its trade secrets is an important factor in its overall ability to survive and prosper. In the employment context, complicated legal issues arise when a departing employee is in a position to use and/or disclose confidential information to a competitor.
Complicated legal issues also exist when hiring the employee of a competitor. An important step for a company when using risk management procedures is to implement processes to protect trade secrets and confidential information. Also, a company needs to protect itself from unfair competition claims, as well as prevent the raiding of its employees. All are wrapped up in trade secrets.
Understanding What Constitutes a Trade Secret
If trade secrets are important and are protected- what are they?
In Korea, the statute that governs trade secrets is the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act- or the “UCPA”. Article 2 92) of the UCPA defines a trade secret as :
" Business or technical information, including manufacturing method. Selling method or other information useful in the trade, which has an independent economic value and is maintained as a secret through reasonable efforts of its owner”.
In essence to constitute a trade secret in Korea. The courts will look at the following criteria regarding the information:
1. The extent to which the information in question is known outside the business;
2. The extent to which the information is known by employees and others involved in the business;
3. The extent of the measures to safeguard the secrecy of the information;
4. The value of the information to the competitor; and
5. The amount of effort or expense required to develop or compile the information.
The determination of whether information constitutes a trade secret is extremely fact specific, and the courts have reached opposite conclusions on the same types of information depending on the facts presented. Two principal factors create the difference between cases that recognize information as a trade secret and cases that do not. First, courts determine whether the information is truly secret, i.e. not in the public domain or easily accessed. Second, courts determine whether the employer has taken reasonable steps to protect the secrecy of the information.
Therefore, a simple list containing customer’s names, addresses and phone numbers, which are easily ascertainable, are not deemed to be trade secrets. The information must be information that competitor’s would have difficulty in obti9aning such as customer’s preferences, purchase history and contracts information.
Note: To maintain information as a trade secret , a company must take steps to keep information confidential. Therefore, during the exit interview, an employer should remind the employee of his or her confidentiality obligation. This should cover:
The types of confidential information that the employee previously had access to during his/her employment;
Any agreements with the employee regarding confidentiality or competition issues;
The employee's obligation to return any confidential information (make sure you remind employees to return all electronic information stored in all locations, including personal laptops or home computers);
The duties of the employee's new position;
The employee's responsibility not to use or disclose confidential information
Trade Secret Misappropriation
Remember, the biggest threat of trade secret misappropriation, is generated by the movement of employees or ex-employees. The majority of cases in Korea involving trade secret misappropriation is caused by employees who learn of trade secrets in the normal course of their job and then jump ship. Or a potential business partner learns about trade secrets and then copies them. It is unusual in Korea to have trade secrets misappropriated by a third party stealing them. Normally, an employee is involved. Therefore, companies must take precautions when dealing with employees. A properly drafted confidentiality agreement which contains a restrictive covenant can be an effective tool for preventing trade secret disclosure. But what is meant by the term "restrictive covenant?" It can cover a wide array of devices including:
All of these types of restrictive covenants have a potential role to play in an ongoing effort to protect trade secrets. It is advised that to ensure the proper use of restrictive covenants, you conduct an audit of outstanding agreements to check whether appropriate restrictive covenants are properly used.
The risk of trade secret misappropriation while doing business in Korea is real. To learn about ways to manage or mitigate the risk of trade secret misappropriation of other risk of IP infringement, please join me at the KBLA's 2017 risk management seminar- " Managing Risk in Korea" to be held on March 24 at the Hyatt Hotel in Seoul. Visit the following link to register :
http://www.kbla.info/index.php/professional-seminar-series
Entrance Gate of Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
Organizations always hope for sunny skies and calm seas when conducting business. No one wants to be unpleasantly surprised nor exposed to rough weather, especially if such weather causes a person or an organizations' reputation, financial well being or its very existence to be threatened. (more…)
Effective and transparent corporate governance has become popular in many countries due to recent scandals in many parts of the world. In the US, WorldCom, Tyco and Enron come to mind. In fact, due to such scandals, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was introduced in the United States in 2002. (more…)
As 2016 winds down, companies need to take a step back and reflect on the major events that have shaped 2016 and will potentially affect their companies for years to come. (more…)
Considering recent political and economic events, many companies are reviewing old risk management policies and procedures, in case updates are needed. However, some of the risk management processes that should be reviewed are not being considered as they have been viewed as too expensive or impractical. (more…)
You may already be in a crisis and not know it----One of the main problems with managing a crisis is that the crisis event may have occurred long before a company realizes it is actually in the middle of a crisis. Companies tend to disregard the warning signs of a crisis up until the very end, leaving very little room to maneuver and limiting a company’s options. If you scratch the surface of a corporate crisis you will find the signs were there months in advance. Yes, there was indeed trouble but departments don’t like to raise red flags. People don’t want to lose out on bonuses-it human nature. Who wants to rock the boat and get blamed ? That is precisely why you should think of your company as already being in a crisis or in a pre-crisis stage. Because, it probably is.
When talking to your staff or to other departments, how often have you heard the phrase “That the way we have always done things.” Just because corporate processes have been done one way doesn’t mean that the best way or even in todays’ fast changing world- the right way. Even after 2008 many companies continued to use the failed metrics that got them into trouble in the first place. Even the credit markets haven’t changed as much as you would think after 2008. Why?
I truly believe that once processes are created in a corporate or bureaucratic environment, it is as if the processes have been set in stone. They are very hard to change. Even if the world around the company has changed. It is human nature to accept what has been done in the past. Few people want to “rock the boat” even if the proverbial boat is actually sinking. Companies get into real trouble because of this. What happens if the company’s business model actually is out of date and is no longer viable? Just because it worked in the past doesn’t mean it will work in the future. What about your company’s products and services? If your company relies too heavily on a particular product and that product is found defective or non-conforming that could spell catastrophe. Has your QC department verified all production protocols have been met? What about sub-components? Does your company rely on third parties to provide key components? Have you outsourced your service department to a third party service provider? Are you monitoring your third party suppliers?
I therefore caution everyone not to blindly accept the status quo even when it appears things are humming along. What about your company’s risk management processes? Are those up to date? Risk managers as well as in house counsel and other managers should be challenging risk management metrics on a regular basis. Counsel should be auditing departments on a regular basis. Does your compliance program really work? Maybe it did 5 years ago. But what about today
If local or national laws have changed maybe the current manufacturing processes are out of date. If the products that your company manufactures or the services it provides have changed maybe the internal processes surrounding the review of those products and services are out of date. What about the current social environment? When reviewing your current product liability review processes have you factored in the new risks created by the Internet of all Things? These risks are real. Are you ready for them?
It is a fundamental truth that all things change. Some change faster than others. Regardless, don’t rely on your old or standard risk management processes to continue to provide the same level of comfort they did in the past. Continue to review and to modify them if necessary. Dont rely on your manufacturing processes- they could also be out of date.
Remember; whether you know it or not, your company might already be in a crisis. Maybe it is time for a crisis management review.
