205 CORP. v. Brandow
1994 WL 235394, 517 N.W.2d 548, 1994 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 120 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff is entitled to only one full recovery for a single injury, and cannot receive duplicative damage awards for the same harm under alternative legal theories, such as a statutory trade secret claim and a related common-law tort. Information qualifies as a trade secret if it derives independent economic value from its secrecy and is subject to efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain that secrecy.
Facts:
- 205 Corporation owns and operates The Tavern, a restaurant in West Des Moines, Iowa.
- 205 Corporation hired Ron Brandow to manage The Tavern and provided him with recipes for its pizza sauce, pizza crust, and grinder sandwiches, which it considered confidential.
- The pizza sauce and grinder recipes were known only to 205 Corporation's president and the restaurant's former owner.
- The pizza crust recipe was known to several kitchen employees because the dough had to be prepared fresh daily.
- 205 Corporation informed Brandow that the recipes were confidential and kept them in a safe deposit box.
- After 205 Corporation terminated Brandow's employment, he went to work for a competitor, Mustards Restaurant.
- Brandow provided The Tavern's pizza and grinder recipes to his new employer, Mustards.
Procedural Posture:
- 205 Corporation filed a lawsuit in an Iowa trial court against Ron Brandow and his new employer, Mustards Restaurant.
- The suit alleged misappropriation of trade secrets under Iowa Code chapter 550 and, among other things, that Mustards induced Brandow's breach of his duty of loyalty.
- A jury found for 205 Corporation and returned verdicts awarding separate damages on the statutory misappropriation claim ($145,000) and the common-law inducement claim ($195,000).
- The trial court entered judgment based on the jury's verdicts and also granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from using the recipes.
- Mustards appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an award of damages for both a statutory misappropriation of trade secrets claim and a common-law inducement of breach of duty claim constitute an impermissible duplicative recovery when both claims arise from the same injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Harris, Justice
Yes, an award of damages for both a statutory trade secret claim and a common-law claim constitutes an impermissible duplicative recovery where both theories address the same underlying injury. A successful plaintiff is entitled to one, but only one, full recovery, no matter how many theories support entitlement. In this case, the claim for misappropriation of a trade secret under the Iowa Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the claim for inducement of breach of duty are alternative theories of recovery for the same injury—the wrongful taking and use of the recipes. Therefore, the judgment must be modified to prevent double recovery by allowing recovery on only one of the claims. The court also held that Iowa's trade secret statute does not preempt related common-law tort claims, as the legislature deliberately omitted the preemption section from the uniform act. Furthermore, the recipes qualified as trade secrets because they had independent economic value and were subject to secrecy efforts that were 'reasonable under the circumstances,' even though the crust recipe was known to several employees out of business necessity.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the relationship between statutory trade secret law and common law torts in Iowa, establishing that the Uniform Trade Secrets Act does not preempt related common law claims. However, it strongly reinforces the fundamental legal principle against double recovery, holding that plaintiffs must ultimately elect a single recovery for a single harm, even if multiple legal theories are successful. The case also provides a flexible and practical interpretation of the 'reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy' requirement for trade secrets, acknowledging that business realities may necessitate limited disclosure to employees without destroying the secret's legal protection. This allows plaintiffs to plead in the alternative but caps the final award, shaping litigation strategy in trade secret disputes.
