Misappropriation of intellectual property: Infringement:
Conversion: Common law: Trade secret:
Montana Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA)
The essential elements of common law conversion
are: (1) a claimant’s right of possession or control over the subject personal
property; (2) the intentional exercise of possession or control over the
property by another inconsistent with the right of the owner and without right
or consent; and (3) resulting damages to the claimant. Gebhardt v. D.A.
Davidson & Co., 203 Mont. 384, 389, 661 P.2d 855, 858 (1983).
Apart from conversion, the common law further
recognizes two related but distinct theories of misappropriation of
intellectual property―contract-based misappropriation and property right-based
tortious misappropriation. See Apfel v. Prudential-Bache Securities Inc.,
616 N.E.2d 1095, 1097-98 (N.Y. 1993) (distinguishing breach of non-disclosure agreement,
contract misappropriation of intellectual property, and tortious misappropriation
of property right-based intellectual property). Accord Nadel v. Play-by-Play
Toys & Novelties, Inc., 208 F.3d 368, 374-78 (2nd Cir. 2000)
(construing Apfel).
As a specialized variant of a breach of contract
theory, the elements of a claim for contract misappropriation of intellectual
property are: (1) an agreement for one to communicate an idea or knowledge to
another in return for valuable consideration; (2) the idea or knowledge had
value to the recipient at the time of contract formation regardless of whether
“grossly unequal” or of “dubious value” in relation to the consideration paid
or provided in return; (3) the recipient breached the agreement; and (4)
resulting damages to the claimant based on breaching party’s beneficial use of
the idea or knowledge. See Apfel, 616 N.E.2d at 1097-98 (emphasizing
freedom of contract and subjective assessment of value). Accord Nadel,
208 F.3d at 376-80. While a truly novel idea or knowledge is presumed to be of
value to a recipient who paid or pledged valuable consideration to acquire it,
an idea or knowledge need not be truly original or novel to be of value to a
recipient as a matter of contract consideration. Apfel, 616 N.E.2d at
1098.
The essential elements of a property
rights-based claim for tortious misappropriation of intellectual property are: (1)
an idea was communicated by the claimant to another in confidence; (2) the idea
was novel and original; (3) the recipient used the idea to the recipient’s
benefit; and (4) resulting damages to the claimant based on the tortfeasor’s
beneficial use of the idea or knowledge. See Apfel, 616 N.E.2d at
1097-98; Alevizos v. John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Found., 764
So. 2d 8, 11 (Fla. App. 1999). An idea may give rise to a cognizable property
right or interest only if novel and original. Apfel, 616 N.E.2d at 1098;
Paul v. Haley, 588 N.Y.S.2d 897, 902 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992) (idea that is
not novel is not cognizable as property and thus cannot be misappropriated or
stolen); Downey v. Gen. Foods Corp., 286 N.E.2d 257, 259 (N.Y. 1972)
(ideas are cognizable and protectable as property rights only if novel and original).
In contrast to the common law protection of
intellectual property, MUTSA defines the term “trade secret” as any
“information or computer software, including a formula, pattern, compilation,
program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (a) derives independent
economic value . . . from not being generally known. . . [or] readily
ascertainable by proper means by other persons who can obtain economic value
from its disclosure or use; and (b) is the subject of efforts that are
reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. Section
30-14-402(4), MCA. In pertinent part, MUTSA defines actionable “misappropriation”
of a trade secret as the “disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without
express or implied consent by a person who . . . used improper means to acquire
knowledge of the trade secret.” Section 30-14-402(2)(b)(i), MCA. As used in §
30-14-402(2)(b)(i), MCA, and as pertinent here, “improper means” includes
theft, misrepresentation, or breach of a duty to maintain secrecy.
(Montana Supreme Court, July 24, 2018,
Associated Management Services, Inc. v. Ruff, Case Number DA 17-0102, Cit. 2018
MT 182, J. Sandefur)
Une violation des
droits de propriété intellectuelle peut être reconnue si sont réunies
alternativement les conditions de :
1 ) la théorie de
la « conversion »,
2 ) la théorie de
l’appropriation illicite basée sur un contrat,
3 ) la théorie de
l’appropriation illicite extracontractuelle.
(Théories à
distinguer de la violation d’une clause de confidentialité).
1 ) La notion de
« conversion » provient de la Common law et suppose une prise
intentionnelle de contrôle ou de possession illicite, par un tiers, d’un droit
de propriété du lésé, provoquant un dommage.
2 ) La notion
d’appropriation illicite basée sur un contrat provient de la Common law et
suppose la transmission conventionnelle d’idées ou de connaissances moyennant
contre-prestation (« consideration »), le bénéficiaire de la
communication violant par la suite le contrat, par exemple en divulguant à des
tiers ce qui lui a été communiqué, causant ainsi un dommage à son
cocontractant. L’idée ou les connaissances doivent avoir une certaine valeur
pour celui qui les reçoit. L’idée ou les connaissances n’ont pas nécessairement
à être nouvelles ou originales.
3 ) La notion
d’appropriation illicite extracontractuelle provient elle-aussi de la Common
law et suppose la transmission confidentielle à un tiers d’une idée ou de connaissances
nouvelles et originales, le tiers violant par la suite la confidentialité en
utilisant à son profit l’idée ou la connaissance et causant ainsi un dommage.
En plus de ces
théories de la Common law protégeant la propriété intellectuelle, peut
s’appliquer la loi (ici de l’état du Montana) protégeant les secrets d’affaires
(ce type de lois découle d’une loi uniforme et se retrouve dans d’autres
états).
