California Labor &
Employment Law Blog

Courts Help Brewers Protect Their Recipes and Techniques from Employee Theft
Apr. 8 2019

Courts Help Brewers Protect Their Recipes and Techniques from Employee Theft

Topics: Non-Compete and Trade Secrets

Craft brewers celebrated National Beer Day yesterday with more comfort that Courts will help them protect their recipes, brewing processes and other trade secret information against rogue employees who take such information.

A dispute “brewing” since 2013 came to a “head” on March 20, 2019 when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision that Anheuser-Busch could prosecute its civil claim against a former employee accused of taking recipes and other trade secret information and providing that information to lawyers to support a different class action lawsuit against Anheuser-Busch.  Anheuser-Busch v. Clark, No. 17-15591 (9th Cir., not for publication, March 20, 2019).

Anheuser-Busch required its employees to enter into agreements to protect its confidential information, return all confidential information at termination of employment, not disclose the confidential information and, following termination, upon request, certify that the employee had not disclosed or used any confidential information.  In 2013, a former employee, Clark, convinced one of his former co-workers to send him an email containing a page of information containing Anheuser-Busch’s recipe and other information, and then sent that information to the plaintiff’s lawyers in a class action case that was filed immediately thereafter.  Clark also refused to provide the requested certification.

Clark filed an Anti-SLAPP motion to try to defeat the claims.  An Anti-SLAPP lawsuit is supposed to prevent meritless litigation designed to chill first amendment rights.  If a defendant establishes that the challenged case arises from protected activity, the plaintiff, here Anheuser-Busch, must meet the challenge of demonstrating a probability of prevailing on the merits.  In 2015, the Ninth Circuit, in this same case concluded that the lawsuit was based on Clark’s actions in furtherance of protected activity.  So, the lower court conducted a lengthy analysis to conclude that Anheuser-Busch demonstrated that its recipes and methodologies were subject to trade secret protection, used reasonable means to protect its secrets, that Clark misappropriated the trade secret information and breached his contractual obligations to Anheuser-Busch.  And, on this “round” to the Ninth Circuit, it agreed that Anheuser-Busch demonstrated a likelihood of success.

Before finishing your beer, be sure that you have consulted with counsel to ensure you have updated your employment confidentiality agreements and practices to protect against the theft of your recipes, techniques, methods and other trade secret information that differentiates your brand from others.

About CDF

For over 20 years, CDF has distinguished itself as one of the top employment, labor and immigration firms in California, representing employers in single-plaintiff and class action lawsuits and advising employers on related legal compliance and risk avoidance. We cover the state, with five locations from Sacramento to San Diego.

> visit primary site

About the Editor

Robin Largent has a regular presence in California state and federal courts and has been lead defense counsel and appellate counsel for large and small California employers in litigation (and arbitration) ranging from individual discrimination and harassment claims to complex wage and hour representative and class actions. She also leads the firm’s appellate practice, having substantial experience and success handling appeals, writ petitions, and amicus briefs in both state and federal court on issues such as class certification (particularly in the wage and hour arena), manageability and due process concerns associated with class action trials, exempt/non-exempt misclassification issues, meal and rest break compliance, trade secret/unfair competition matters, and the scope of federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
> Contact   > Full Bio   Call 916.361.0991


Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP © 2019

About CDFWhat We DoContact UsAttorney AdvertisingDisclaimer