Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Publicly Available Information - Arguing that formation was publicly available generally negates the claim of confidentiality but does not automatically constitute a defense to breach of confidentiality. Courts recognize that information publicly accessible can weaken a confidentiality claim, but the core issue remains whether the information was truly confidential or proprietary. For example, the Confidential Documents/Information shall not be available for inspection after disposal of the matter, except to the Party producing the same ["TOSO CO LTD vs GOODMEYER CURTAIN ACCESSORIES SUPPLY SDN BHD - High Court"], indicating that confidentiality is maintained unless the information is publicly accessible.
Effect of Public Disclosure on Trade Secrets - Publication of information in patents or public sales destroys trade secret protection. A company may not publicly disclose information in a patent and then claim that the information is a trade secret ["Life Spine Inc. vs Aegis Spine Inc. - Seventh Circuit"]. Similarly, information that is 'readily ascertainable' upon examination of a product cannot be protected as a trade secret ["Life Spine Inc. vs Aegis Spine Inc. - Seventh Circuit"].
Confidential Information Definition and Public Accessibility - Confidential information is defined as non-public, proprietary data not available in the public domain IRENE CHIN ZEE LING. If information is publicly accessible, it generally cannot be considered confidential or proprietary, as information as this information is publicly accessible by a search on Google ["EUROPACK INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD & ANOR vs KANG MEI SIM & ANOR - High Court"].
Defense Based on Public Availability - The argument that information was publicly available can serve as a defense to breach claims, but it depends on whether the information was truly accessible or proprietary. Courts examine whether the information was publicly disclosed or was confidential at the time of misappropriation. For instance, information regarding Elantec Sdn Bhd is not P1's confidential information as this information is publicly ... ["EUROPACK INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD & ANOR vs KANG MEI SIM & ANOR - High Court"].
Limitations of Public Availability Defense - Even if information is publicly accessible, the timing, manner of disclosure, and whether reasonable protective measures were taken are crucial. Without protective measures, it is possible for savvy competitors who are not parties to the current litigation to... gain insights ["TOSO CO LTD vs GOODMEYER CURTAIN ACCESSORIES SUPPLY SDN BHD - High Court"]. Thus, public availability alone may not fully absolve liability if confidentiality was maintained or the disclosure was unauthorized.
Analysis and Conclusion:Arguing that formation or information was publicly available can be a valid defense to breach of confidentiality claims. However, its effectiveness hinges on whether the information was genuinely accessible to the public at the relevant time. Courts distinguish between information that was publicly disclosed and proprietary or confidential data that was not accessible or was protected by measures. Ultimately, if the information was not publicly accessible or was disclosed without authorization, the defense may weaken or fail. Conversely, if the information was already in the public domain, it diminishes the likelihood of establishing a breach of confidentiality.
In today's digital age, where information spreads rapidly, businesses and individuals often face claims of breaching confidentiality. A common question arises: for a claim of breach of confidential information, is it a valid defense to argue that the information was publicly available? This post delves into this critical legal issue, drawing on established principles and Malaysian jurisprudence to provide clarity. While this analysis offers general insights, it is not legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for your specific situation.
To succeed in a breach of confidentiality claim, the claimant must prove three essential elements, as outlined in landmark cases. First, the information must have the quality of confidentiality—it should not be readily accessible to the public. Second, there must be an obligation of confidence, arising from contracts, employment terms, or fiduciary relationships. Third, there must be unauthorized use or disclosure causing detriment to the owner. RAGHUNATH RAMAIAH KANDIKERI vs ECOOILS SDN BHD - 2013 MarsdenLR 2340
In Coco v. AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd1969 RPC 41, the court established these elements: breach involves misuse of information that was entrusted in confidence, and the three essential elements are: the information's confidential nature, the obligation of confidence, and unauthorized use causing detriment. RAGHUNATH RAMAIAH KANDIKERI vs ECOOILS SDN BHD - 2013 MarsdenLR 2340 This test remains foundational in common law jurisdictions, including Malaysia.
Similarly, Ocular Sciences Ltd v. Aspect Vision Care Ltd1997 stresses precisely identifying the confidential information and confirming its non-public nature. TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs BIG MAN MANAGEMENT SDN BHD - 2023 MarsdenLR 1226 Vague claims often fail, as seen in China Road & Bridge Corporation v. DCX Technologies Sdn Bhd2014, where the court required clear specification of the breached information. TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs BIG MAN MANAGEMENT SDN BHD - 2023 MarsdenLR 1226
Yes, generally, if information is already in the public domain, it loses its confidential character and cannot support a breach claim. Referencing or discussing publicly available sources—like media articles—typically does not constitute a breach. This defense is particularly potent when the defendant shows the information was accessible without restriction.
In a key Malaysian reference, the respondent successfully argued that citing The Edge Article—a public domain publication—did not breach confidentiality, as publicly available information, such as media articles, cannot be deemed confidential. ROBERT TI V.ECM LIBRA AVENUE SECURITIES SDN BHD - 2012 MarsdenLR 1382 The court agreed, noting that mere reference in conversation or professional contexts does not misuse confidential data. ROBERT TI V.ECM LIBRA AVENUE SECURITIES SDN BHD - 2012 MarsdenLR 1382
This aligns with broader principles: ‘confidential information’ can be defined as anything that is not available in the public domain or information that is not public property. Osram Opto Semiconductors (M) Sdn Bhd vs Ooi Mei Chien @ Wei Mei Chien Once public, information sheds its protective cloak, shifting the burden back to the claimant to prove exclusivity. LINK 2020 MALAYSIA SDN BHD vs DIGI TELECOMMUNICATION SDN BHD - 2015 MarsdenLR 1302
The manner of reference is crucial. Professional discussions or journalistic mentions of public facts rarely trigger liability. Evidence from ROBERT TI V.ECM LIBRA AVENUE SECURITIES SDN BHD - 2012 MarsdenLR 1382 shows an individual referencing public articles without disclosing proprietary secrets, reinforcing no breach occurred.
The claimant bears the onus to demonstrate confidentiality, obligation, and harm. Defendants can counter by evidencing public availability or independent development. LINK 2020 MALAYSIA SDN BHD vs DIGI TELECOMMUNICATION SDN BHD - 2015 MarsdenLR 1302 Malaysian courts demand precise pleadings; broad allegations undermine claims, as in China Road & Bridge Corporation. TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs BIG MAN MANAGEMENT SDN BHD - 2023 MarsdenLR 1226
In employment disputes, this defense frequently arises. For instance, former employees accused of misusing client lists or pricing data may defend if such info was public or independently sourced. However, courts scrutinize: in Dynacast (Melaka) Sdn Bhd v. Vision Cast Sdn Bhd (2016) 3 MLJ 417, pricing was deemed inherently confidential due to its competitive sensitivity, not public nature. OTL ASIA SDN BHD vs LEE YIK CHIEH & ORS
Employee breaches often involve fiduciary duties alongside confidentiality. In cases like the one involving former employees setting up competing firms, courts upheld claims where info was proprietary, not public. EUROPACK INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD & ANOR vs KANG MEI SIM & ANOREUROPACK INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD & ANOR vs KANG MEI SIM & ANOR One ruling noted defendants arguing certain info about a company (Elantec Sdn Bhd) was not confidential as it was public, but the court evaluated specifics. EUROPACK INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD & ANOR vs KANG MEI SIM & ANOR
Another emphasized: employees must protect proprietary info post-employment, but public data doesn't qualify. Injunctions were granted against misuse, yet defenses succeeded where no non-public disclosure occurred. EUROPACK INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD & ANOR vs KANG MEI SIM & ANOR These cases illustrate courts' focus on whether info truly resided outside the public domain before alleged breach.
Contrastingly, in OTL disputes, price factors were confidential despite industry knowledge, highlighting that even partially public elements may retain protection if compiled uniquely. OTL ASIA SDN BHD vs LEE YIK CHIEH & ORS
While Malaysian law predominates here, global cases echo this. US rulings note that without reasonable steps to protect info (e.g., NDAs), public availability weakens claims. Jacam Chemical Co. 2013 LLC vs Arthur Shepard Jr. - 2024 Supreme(US)(ca8) 223 Indian courts similarly reject confidentiality over public investigative reports. Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited VS Union of India - 2023 Supreme(SC) 304
Businesses should implement robust policies: clear NDAs, info classification, and training to avoid disputes.
In summary, arguing public availability can effectively defend against breach claims, provided evidence supports it. Courts scrutinize at disclosure time, making proactive documentation essential. For tailored advice, seek professional legal counsel.
Sources: ROBERT TI V.ECM LIBRA AVENUE SECURITIES SDN BHD - 2012 MarsdenLR 1382RAGHUNATH RAMAIAH KANDIKERI vs ECOOILS SDN BHD - 2013 MarsdenLR 2340LINK 2020 MALAYSIA SDN BHD vs DIGI TELECOMMUNICATION SDN BHD - 2015 MarsdenLR 1302TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD vs BIG MAN MANAGEMENT SDN BHD - 2023 MarsdenLR 1226Osram Opto Semiconductors (M) Sdn Bhd vs Ooi Mei Chien @ Wei Mei ChienOTL ASIA SDN BHD vs LEE YIK CHIEH & ORSEUROPACK INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD & ANOR vs KANG MEI SIM & ANOREUROPACK INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD & ANOR vs KANG MEI SIM & ANOR
#BreachOfConfidentiality #PublicDomainDefense #LegalInsights
information from being publicly disclosed during the assessment of damages. ... i) The Confidential Documents/ Information shall not be available for inspection after disposal of the matter, except to the Party producing the same. ... Without protective measures, it is possible for savvy competitors who are not parties to the current litigation to comb the publicly-available dockets in the EFS wherein such information would allow them to gain insigh....
Life Spine agreed, but first required Aegis to promise in writing that it would protect Life Spine’s confidential information, use the confidential in‐ formation only in furtherance of the parties’ business relation‐ ship, and refrain from sharing the ProLift with anyone who intended to use it for purposes ... Thus, a company may not publicly disclose information in a patent and then claim that the information is a trade se‐ cret. “Publication in a p....
(iii) Whether there is a breach of confidence? ... IRENE CHIN ZEE LING , held that “confidential information” can be defined as anything that is not available in the public domain or information that is not public property. ... [44]Here, it is submitted by the Learned Plaintiff’s Counsel that the Confidential Documents and/or the information as contained therein was clearly not available to the public domain and was intended to be....
the information to anyone else before the offering is publicly announced. ... The secondary offering was publicly announced on May 3, 2012. 4 The government in its brief refers to Fishoff’s use of “coded language” to pass along the confidential information to others. ... The emails clearly stated that they contained confidential information, the use of which was restricted. If anything, these form confidentiality agreements should have been red flags for Fishoff tha....
[62] A shift in the burden of proof also addresses the practical difficulties faced by owners of confidential information in bringing a claim in confidence. ... her the confidential information. ... The price factor is the key factor that determines whether OTL gets the contract (business) or not. As such, the information relating to OTL's prices is inherently confidential. ... Issues To Be Tried [14] The agreed issues to be tried are: (1) #HL_STAR....
In pleading -7- “lack of consideration” as a defense, Shepard flagged his intention to argue a consideration issue as an affirmative defense. ... And though we note Jacam required its employees to keep all information confidential, that is not enough to show Jacam took reasonable steps to keep the information confidential, particularly when Jacam did not require some of its own customers to keep that informati....
The O'Hagan Court simply stated that no breach of a duty occurs when the evidence tends to show that an insider allowed an outsider to share the insider's confidential information. ... Whether Kanodia requested an elements or theory-of-defense instruction -- and thus regardless of whether de novo or plain error review applies -- his argument fails. ... Deception Kanodia's final claim of instructional error faults the district court for failing to....
Whether D1 breached the terms of the said letter of employment? b. Whether D1 had committed a breach of her obligations relating to P1's confidential information? c. Whether D1 breached her fiduciary duties? [2023] 7 CLJ 534 ] [64] The Defendants in their submission attempted to persuade this Court that the information regarding Elantec Sdn Bhd is not P1's confidential information as this information is p....
Issue No 2: Whether D1 Had Committed A Breach Of Her Obligation Pertaining To P1's Confidential Information? ... information as this information is publicly accessible by a search on Google. ... Whether D1 breached the terms of the said letter of employment? b. Whether D1 had committed a breach of her obligations relating to P1's confidential information? c. Whether#HL....
Whether D1 breached the terms of the said letter of employment? b. Whether D1 had committed a breach of her obligations relating to P1's confidential information? c. Whether D1 breached her fiduciary duties? [2023] 4 MLJ 792 ; [2023] 7 CLJ 534 ] [64] The Defendants in their submission attempted to persuade this Court that the information regarding Elantec Sdn Bhd is not P1's confidential information as this information#HL_....
As it would be evident from the extractions of the material below, reports of investigative agencies make observations and provide inferences on the conduct of individuals which are then relied upon by the decision making authority. To argue that reports of the intelligence agencies may contain confidential information is one thing but to argue that the all such reports are confidential is another. Such an argument is misplaced and cannot be accepted on the touchstone of constitutional values. The reports by investigative agencies impact decisions on the life, liberty, and ....
There is no provision of law which supports the claim of the respondent. The claim that confidential information was made part of the documents filed in the Court, according to Mr. Nigam, is without merit as there is no breach of confidentiality. The Whatsapp messages are filed owing to its importance as evidence, as bulk of the communications between the salary partners and also the EC for the L&L Firms are carried out via Whatsapp.
It is required to apply the standard of information that is reasonably available publicly. The mandate of the Section 9A(5) of the Act, as implemented through Rule 23(1B), Respondent No. 2, while considering the meaning of “duly substantiated petition”, cannot stretch it to include (a) business sensitive confidential information of foreign producers, (b) information not in public domain. While in the present case sufficient prima facie information to justify investigation was provided by the Petitioner No.1, further information on this account is required to be provided by ....
In the unreported decisions of this court cited by appellant's counsel, a situation as appears in this case is not discussed. The Supreme Court in A. Venkatasubbaiah (supra) has held that the defendant gets a right of appeal if the application is not decided within 30 days. Certainly, that right is always available only when he is ready to argue by putting forth his defense.
They did not share this information with any body, then how come accused became knowledgeable about the whereabouts of deceased and time of his arrival? There is nothing on record to show that such information was publicly available.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
