However, in the absence of the confidentiality clause/agreement, its applicability can still be emphasized by the unveiling party on the basis of the principle of justice, justice, good faith and fair trade. The objective is to avoid the disclosure of confidential information received from one party by the other party or, for its own purposes, once the contract has been terminated, where such disclosure causes irreparable harm. It also varies depending on the type of information disclosed, as a party cannot claim the confidentiality of that information when general information is made available to the public, i.e. customer contact information or phone numbers that are open and available. The summary decision raises a question of fact as to whether Liu violated these prohibitions based on his knowledge of Aetna`s business requirements and the complexity of its compensation system for agents originally acquired during his work at Trilogy on the DMS product, in order to identify and correct defects in the Callidus TrueComp product. Watch the summary recording of the judgment in the light, most favourable to the trilogue, Callidus had not identified these problems before and was not likely, at least as quickly as Liu, and it is reasonable to conclude that Liu would not have been able to identify so quickly the imperfections of the Callidus software to cope with the complexities of Aetna`s needs if he had not used the client information he had obtained while working on Aetna`s account. Liu was banned by pia from using or disclosing this information in his work for Callidus. We maintain Trilogy`s assertions that Liu breached its confidentiality obligations and that Callidus violated those obligations. In this case, disclosure of the fact and terms of the transaction did not cause significant economic harm to DFK and the risk of imitation of other angry employees who may have heard of the transaction was low. Since it was an interim delay and he was not reluctant, the High Court dismissed the appeal. This is an intellectual property case that occurred after calls Yinghui Liu, who previously worked for the complainant Trilogy Software, Inc., worked for calle Software, Inc., one of Trilogy`s competitors.
Trilogy filed a complaint in which Liu claimed that he had violated competition and confidentiality agreements with Trilogy and that Callidus had disrupted those agreements. The trilogy also claimed that Callidus and Liu both hijacked the trilogy`s business secrets. The court issued a summary judgment in favour of Callidus and Liu with respect to all of Trilogy`s claims. We confirm in part and backwards and in pre-trial detention. The exception of criminal proceedings goes back to Kania. There, the Court of Claims verified whether an agreement that was not reached between a United States Attorney Assistant and a complainant was a money warrant. Kania, 650 F.2d at 266:68. The court found that this was not the case.
Id. to 267. The Tribunal`s argument was that the agreement did not prove that AUSA had the power to impose payment by the government in the event of an infringement. Id. at 268. The Tribunal considered that a demonstration of authority in the criminal context was essential, since the criminal procedure itself would be outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.