Kowalevich v. Nailite International Inc.
37 F. App'x 514 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York law, a claim for trade secret misappropriation requires proof that the defendant actually used the plaintiff's trade secret; evidence that the defendant independently developed the product at issue is a complete defense to such a claim.
Facts:
- Peter Kowalevich developed ideas for a new type of siding called 'plastic perfection panels'.
- In April 1988, Kowalevich entered into a confidentiality agreement with Nailite International, Inc. to discuss his ideas.
- Under the agreement, Kowalevich would disclose his information to Nailite.
- In exchange, Nailite agreed to maintain the information in strict confidence and not to 'disclose or use the Information'.
- Kowalevich then shared his ideas for the plastic panels with Nailite.
- Subsequently, Nailite developed and began marketing its own two-tier plastic perfection panel.
- Nailite later obtained United States Patent 5,537,792 for its siding panel, without naming Kowalevich as an inventor.
Procedural Posture:
- Peter Kowalevich sued Nailite International, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (a federal trial court).
- Kowalevich's complaint included claims for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and a request to be named as an inventor on Nailite's patent.
- The district court, after a trial, entered a final decision in favor of Nailite, dismissing all of Kowalevich's claims.
- Peter Kowalevich (appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under New York law, does a defendant misappropriate a trade secret and breach a confidentiality agreement prohibiting its use if the defendant independently develops a similar product without using the plaintiff's disclosed information?
Opinions:
Majority - Prost, Circuit Judge.
No. A defendant does not misappropriate a trade secret or breach a confidentiality agreement if it independently develops a product without using the plaintiff's confidential information. To succeed on a trade secret misappropriation claim under New York law, a plaintiff must prove two elements: (1) possession of a trade secret, and (2) that the defendant used that trade secret. In this case, the record supports the trial court's factual finding that Nailite created its panel independently. Because Nailite did not 'use' any information from Kowalevich, there was no misappropriation. This same lack of use means Nailite did not breach the confidentiality agreement, which explicitly forbade the 'use' of the information. Similarly, to be named an inventor on a patent, one must have made a significant contribution to the invention's conception; since Nailite did not use Kowalevich's ideas, he made no such contribution.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes that the 'use' element is a critical and dispositive component of a trade secret misappropriation claim. It solidifies independent development as a powerful affirmative defense, meaning a defendant can defeat a claim by proving it created its product without relying on the plaintiff's information, even if it had access to that information. This precedent protects legitimate innovation and competition by ensuring that trade secret law punishes unlawful taking, not simultaneous, independent invention. It places a significant burden on plaintiffs to produce evidence not just of access, but of actual use or derivation.
