Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy

Summary

The court affirmed most rulings concerning the alleged misappropriation, sanctions, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, civil conspiracy, and punitive damages. It held that liability under CUTSA requires proof that the defendant actually or constructively possessed the trade secret itself, not merely a product embodying it, and that monetary and injunctive relief ordinarily is limited to the trade-secret head-start period. The court reversed the judgments against Lipman, Durafloor, and ProRez for a new trial on Lipman's knowledge of the trade secrets, reversed the ruling on the noncompete agreement, and remanded for further proceedings concerning consideration and breach.