Syncsort v. Innovative Routines.pdf - Trade Secrets Institute

Sheppard v. Township of Frankford, 617 A.2d 666, 669 (N.J. App. Div. 1992) (quotingRestatement (Second) of Torts § 936 (1977)).1. Syncsort’s Property Interest Is of a Character That Should be ProtectedSyncsort’s property interest in its trade secret is worthy of protection. Courts have nothesitated to enjoin competitors from using trade secrets. See, e.g., Rohm & Haas, 689 F.2d at433.2. Money Damages Are InadequateMoney damages are inadequate because IRI’s misappropriation is continuing, irreparableharm. The sole purpose of the ssu2scl translator is to lure Syncsort’s customers, if IRI is notenjoined from use of Syncsort’s trade secret, it will, in all likelihood continue to use Syncsort’sproprietary information to compete against Syncsort. Even if a damage award were available inthis case and damages were presently ascertainable, a monetary award would not adequatecompensate for future lost goodwill and commercial profits. Moreover, the nature of tradesecrets demand injunctive relief: if IRI is permitted to continue using the proprietary information,the information may no longer be considered secret and once lost, a trade secret is lost forever. Itwould be difficult to quantify the extent of the loss of secrecy status.3. Syncsort Promptly Sued IRISyncsort sued IRI within four months of learning of the misappropriation. There was nodelay, nor have the defendants suggested that there was.4. There is No Evidence of Misconduct by SyncsortThere is no evidence that Syncsort has unclean hands in this matter.33