e-Commerce Docket Sheet

A software company claiming trade-secret misappropriation of segments of computer source code failed to meet its burden of showing that the disputed import functions, routines and procedures had 'independent economic value,' because it failed to establish that the segments, 'in and of themselves would provide a competitive advantage to a competitor.' Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp., 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1399 (Cal. Ct. App. 6th Dist. Aug. 23, 2007). The appeals court upheld the entry of judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff's trade-secret misappropriation claim, affirming the trial court's conclusion that there was 'no credible evidence' that the disputed code segments satisfied the independent economic value test. Among other things, the trial court concluded that the disputed functions and procedures 'are common to virtually every type of software program that can be conceived of,' and that such functions can be obtained from the Internet.

In a negligence and breach-of-contract action alleging unauthorized access to personal information as the result of a data-security breach, the cost of credit monitoring is not a cognizable injury in fact under Indiana law. Pisciotta v. Old National Bancorp, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20068 (7th Cir. Aug. 23, 2007). The appeals court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the putative class action against a financial-services provider, ruling that in the absence of any specific evidence of identity theft resulting from the security breach, the plaintiffs suffered merely the anticipation of future injury. The court followed the general rule that an alleged increase of future injury is not a cognizable injury that can form the basis of a successful negligence claim. The court also commented that Indiana's data-notification law, which outlines narrow disclosure duties and provides only for state enforcement actions, strongly suggests that Indiana law would not recognize the costs of credit monitoring as compensable damages.