In a case with potentially significant national import, the Connecticut Supreme Court recently held that a plaintiff seeking damages for misappropriation of trade secrets is entitled to a jury trial. In Evans v. General Motors Corp., ___ Conn. ___, 2006 WL 648228 (March 28, 2006), the court concluded that even absent specific case law or legislation, plaintiffs seeking damages in an action for misappropriation of a trade secret have a Constitutional right to have their claims heard by a jury.

The case arose when an inventor sued General Motors under Connecticut and Michigan trade secrets law, as well as the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), C.G.S. §42-110b(a), et seq., claiming that technology he had disclosed under a “black box” agreement was misappropriated by GM in its design for the Corvette. Id. Plaintiff claimed the matter for a jury trial. Id., *2. GM sought to avoid a jury trial, perhaps in part because of its admission that one of its employees had forged evidence and another had given perjured deposition testimony. Id. A bench trial resulted in a finding that the trade secrets claims were barred by a license and release. Id., *3. Plaintiff appealed, arguing he had a constitutional right to a jury trial under the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”), C.G.S. §35-50, et seq.

After concluding that the plaintiff had preserved the issue notwithstanding the bench trial, id., *3-4; the court noted that the operative statute –C.G.S. §35-53 –does not contain language regarding jury trials. The court thus examined whether the kind of claims asserted under CUTSA were substantially similar to those in which there was a right to a jury trial in 1818 –when the Connecticut constitutional provisions were enacted preserving the right to a jury trial. Id., * 6. The court reviewed decisions from other jurisdictions (including England) and concluded that “all of the available evidence suggests that claims alleging the improper disclosure of a trade secret were recognized at common law and tried before juries in English courts when the Connecticut constitution was adopted in 1818.” Id.. Similarly, that copyright and patent cases involving damages had long been tried to a jury “reinforce[d the court’s] determination in the present case that the plaintiffs have a right to a jury trial on their trade secret claims.” Id., *7. After citing other jurisdictions whose civil statutes based upon the same Uniform Trade Secrets Act include jury trial provisions, id., *8; rejecting GM’s argument that because no published opinions exist before 1818 in which a trade secret claim was tried to a jury, a jury trial right was not available; and after conceding that, “[t]o our knowledge, . . . no court expressly has stated that plaintiffs have a right to a jury trial on trade secret claims seeking damages,” id., *8, n. 14, the court held that a trade secrets claim sounding in damages is to be tried before a jury.

As a result of Evans, the parties in trade secrets cases in Connecticut –and potentially other jurisdictions where similar statutory and Constitutional provisions exist –would do well to reevaluate their pretrial and trial strategies. While trade secrets claims which solely seek injunctive relief are not likely to be affected by this ruling, if damages are sought, counsel would do well to ensure that trial preparation and trial strategy are geared towards an effective and engaging jury presentation, rather than one designed for a courtside trial. Thus, evidence, trial techniques, and demonstrative aids ought to be examined and adjusted from the standpoint of jury impact.

In addition, this potential jury trial right may have strategic implications. First, in deciding whether to include a prayer for damages with a petition for injunctive relief, the potential plaintiff should consider whether its trade secrets claim has “jury appeal,” or whether — perhaps because of size differentials or collateral facts — the potential defendants might be benefited if the plaintiff’s claims result in a jury trial. By the same token, a defendant sued in a trade secret claim should, early on, consider whether there are factors that might sway a jury that could affect the viability of an otherwise meritorious defense.

*This article was originally published in DRI’s April 2006 issue of “Business Suit”.