In Hicklin Engineering v.R.J.Bartell,where Bartell quit working for Hicklin and formed a company that competed with Hicklin,which then sued Bartell for theft of trade secrets,the appeals court held that Hicklin:
A)had no suit since the information involved was not protected knowledge
B)had no suit because Bartell had never been informed that he was privilege to trade secrets
C)has a suit if it can show what protected information Bartell used
D)showed theft and would collect treble damages under Wisconsin's Uniform Trade Secrets Act
E)none of the other choices

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The appeals court held that Hicklin could have a suit if they could demonstrate that Bartell had used protected information. This means that Hicklin would need to show evidence that Bartell had accessed or used trade secrets in his new company in order to pursue legal action for theft of trade secrets. The other answer options are incorrect based on the information provided in the question.

In Hicklin Engineering V