1. Formulas Not Considered Trade Secrets: 

• Lemon-flavored soft drink, premium-grade olive oil, recipes for seafood, fajitas, bakery goods (e.g., cakes, cookies), and common ingredient patent medicine: These are generally denied trade secret protection because they involve commonly-known ingredients or recipes that do not offer a significant competitive advantage or are widely known in the industry. 

• Penetrating oil and basic hair dye formula: These are likely not considered trade secrets because they involve basic formulations that do not incorporate unique or proprietary elements. 

• Cream stabilizer: This may be denied trade secret protection if it involves standard techniques or ingredients commonly used in the industry, making it not unique or confidential. 

2. Industrial Formulas Not Considered Trade Secrets: 

• Rust inhibitor, test kits for detection of herpes and other viral illnesses, industrial cleaners, fire-retardant preparation, water-soluble fertilizer, and lacquer: These items are not considered trade secrets because they may involve common formulations or processes that are already known in the public domain or industry, lacking the necessary uniqueness or competitive value. 

• Chemicals used for pest extermination: These might be denied trade secret protection if they are standard chemicals widely available and known in the market. 

• Water purifying formula: Specifically mentioned as not being a trade secret because it was simply a ratio of two well-known ingredients, meaning there was nothing unique or proprietary about the formula. 

3. Processes Not Considered Trade Secrets: 

• Mixing well-known ingredients into soap: Denied protection because the process involved was simply emphasizing care in mixing well-known ingredients, which is not considered a unique or secret process. 

• Cohn process for blood plasma fractionation, techniques for manufacture of a viral testing kit, process for flash cooling of low-acid food products, and process for preparation of bacon bits: These processes were likely not considered trade secrets because they involved techniques or methods that were already known or widely used in the industry, lacking originality or confidentiality. 

• Processes to manufacture monocalcium sulphate, electrolytic and blow-out process to manufacture bromides, vapor blasting process for chrome plating, and processes for melting, smelting, purifying, alloying, and fabricating basic metals: These were likely denied trade secret status because they involved common or standard industrial processes that were not unique or proprietary. 

• Process for producing “needle” coke: This process may have been denied protection because it lacked the necessary uniqueness or proprietary elements, making it something that could not be considered a trade secret. 

4. Manufacturing Processes: 

1. Manufacture of Stamped Circuits: 

• Explanation: Denied protection likely because the process is commonly known or can be easily replicated, lacking the uniqueness required for trade secret status. 

2. Manufacture of Seals for Jet Engines: 

• Explanation: Denied protection likely because the method is not sufficiently unique or proprietary, possibly based on standard industry practices. 

3. Production of Semiconductors: 

• Explanation: Denied protection because the semiconductor production techniques are widely known and standardized within the industry. 

4. Production of Urethane Timing and Other Belts: 

• Explanation: Denied protection as the process is likely based on well-known methods that do not offer a competitive advantage or uniqueness. 

5. Manufacturing Grit by Crushing Scrap Metal: 

• Explanation: Denied protection due to the straightforward nature of the process, making it easily replicable without requiring proprietary knowledge. 

6. Manufacturing Toys from Cardboard: 

• Explanation: Denied protection likely because the process is simple and lacks the originality or complexity that would merit trade secret status. 

7. Coating and Lacquering Doorknobs: 

• Explanation: Denied protection as the process is commonly known in the industry and does not offer a significant competitive advantage. 

8. Moulding Waste Wooden Particles: 

• Explanation: Denied protection because the method is not sufficiently unique, possibly being a widely known technique within the industry. 

9. Printing: 

• Explanation: Denied protection likely because the methods involved are standard and widely used within the printing industry. 

10. Manufacture of Furnaces and Heaters: 

• Explanation: Denied protection due to the standardization of the techniques involved, which are likely common knowledge within the industry. 

11. Manufacture of Metal “C” Seals: 

• Explanation: Denied protection as the methods used are likely common within the industry and do not provide a significant competitive advantage. 

12. Fabricating Multilayer Pressure Vessels: 

• Explanation: Denied protection because the methods are widely known and used in the industry, lacking the uniqueness required for trade secret status. 

13. Manufacture of Multilayer Catalysts for Automotive Antipollution Devices: 

• Explanation: Denied protection due to the standard and commonly used methods in the industry, which do not meet the criteria for trade secret protection. 

14. Paintless Repair of Automotive Dents: 

• Explanation: Denied protection likely because the techniques are well-known, commonly practiced, and easily replicable in the automotive industry. 

15. Construction Techniques for Manufacturing Cryogenic Containers: 

• Explanation: Denied protection as the techniques are standardized within the industry and do not offer a unique or proprietary method. 

5. Methods and Techniques (Know-How): 

1. DNA-based Diagnostic System (Improvements Created by Generally Known Methods and Techniques): 

• Explanation: Denied protection likely because the improvements are based on widely known methods and do not involve any novel or proprietary techniques. 

2. Construction Techniques for Erection of Water Towers: 

• Explanation: Denied protection because the construction techniques are standard within the industry and do not offer any unique or proprietary advantage. 

3. Cutting, Bending, and Welding of Metal Joists: 

• Explanation: Denied protection likely because these methods are widely known and utilized in the industry, lacking the uniqueness required for trade secret status. 

4. “Cold Stitch” Repair Techniques: 

• Explanation: Denied protection as the methods are well-known within the industry, and do not involve any proprietary or novel processes. 

5. Methods and Protocols for FDA Efficacy Studies: 

• Explanation: Denied protection likely because these methods are standardized and required by regulatory bodies, making them commonly known and not proprietary. 

6. Establishing Appropriate Nutrient Profiles for Poultry Feeding: 

• Explanation: Denied protection due to the widespread use of these methods in the industry, which do not provide a significant competitive advantage or involve proprietary knowledge. 

7. Storing and Handling Seafoods: 

• Explanation: Denied protection because the methods are common knowledge within the industry and do not offer any unique or proprietary advantage. 

8. Instructing Persons to Become Truck Drivers: 

• Explanation: Denied protection likely because the methods are widely known and do not involve any proprietary or novel techniques that would merit trade secret protection. 

6. Machines 

• Wire stretcher: The principles were evident upon visual inspection, meaning it was not secret. 

• Machinery for high-efficiency particulate air filtration filters: Likely lacked the necessary secrecy or uniqueness. 

• Mechanical configuration of a hydrogen peroxide plant: The configuration might have been publicly known or easily duplicated. 

• Improved stud lead welding machine: Other similar machines were already in use by competitors, indicating it was not unique. 

• Spring-edging machine: Again, due to similar machines being in use by competitors. 

• Machine for manufacturing metal gaskets: Possibly publicly known or available to competitors. 

• Pneumatic device to tilt a sorting table: The design might have been simple or obvious, not warranting trade secret protection. 

• Paper-clip manufacturing machine: Similar to other machines in the industry, making it not a trade secret. 

• Machine for manufacturing tile board: Public availability or simplicity may have been factors. 

• Paper-slitting and rewinding machine: Similar to other industry machines. 

• Check imprinter: The simplicity or widespread knowledge in the industry might have precluded trade secret protection. 

• Bean sorter: Likely a common machine with no unique or secret aspects. 

7. Products 

• Corneal photography and resulting photo “reading” devices: Possibly due to the widespread nature of the technology. 

• Infrared hotbox detector with an archbar scanning device: Likely known or obvious in the industry. 

• Insulated meter swivel for preventing electrical shorts: Could be due to a simple or publicly known design. 

• Insulated, fiberglass-wrapped fireproofed electrical cable: Similar designs might have been readily available. 

• Improved controlled carrier circuit: Technology likely common or easily replicated. 

• Adjustable rotary-movement pump jack: A common design in the industry. 

• Valve: Likely a simple or obvious design. 

• Cork cap design for an automatic radio antenna: Possibly due to a lack of secrecy or innovation. 

• Fiberglass filter: Common design or easily duplicated. 

• Self-locking truck hitch: Likely a simple and obvious mechanism. 

• Industrial side-fan zone controlled carburizing furnace: Could be due to the widespread nature of the technology. 

• Time-and-temperature sign: Likely a common or easily reproducible product. 

• Doll’s movable eye parts: Possibly due to the simplicity or commonality of the design. 

• Dental post and its method of manufacture: Technology may be widespread or easily replicated. 

• Collapsible fishing pole: Common product or design. 

• Window hinge: Likely a simple and common mechanism. 

• Window “blind stop”: Could be due to the lack of secrecy or innovation. 

8. Plans, Designs, and Patterns 

• Plans for casket dimensions: Simple and obvious design, not unique. 

• Plans for metal and plastic molds: Could be due to the common nature of the designs. 

• Plans and specifications for rack and deck ovens: Likely common designs. 

• Component and assembly drawings for microwave ovens: Technology probably widespread or easily accessible. 

• Obsolete plans for cooling towers: Obsolescence likely makes them unprotectable as trade secrets. 

• Torsion-spring hung dump hole doors: Likely a simple and obvious design. 

• Laboratory exhaust fans: Similar designs might have been available. 

• Design for a nut spinner to be sold: Likely due to public availability or obviousness. 

• Molds for plastic fish lures (subject of U.S. design patents): Patented designs are public and cannot be trade secrets. 

• Published law key-number system: Publicly available information, not secret. 

9. Customer Lists 

• Laundry route list (various jurisdictions): Simple and often publicly observable, making it not secret. 

• Building maintenance lists: Common and likely publicly available information. 

• Industrial lunch-box customer list: Consisting of one large customer, too specific to be considered secret. 

• Ice, bakery, and tailor routes (Massachusetts): Readily observable, public information. 

• Multigraphing-services customer list (Minnesota): Information likely available or easily observable. 

• Window-cleaning route (New Jersey): Publicly observable, not secret. 

• Automobile insurance customer list (New Jersey): Readily available from public records or other sources. 

• Fuel-oil customer list (New York): Committed to memory, not considered secret. 

• Subscribers to official law reports (New York): Publicly available information. 

• Snow removal customers (New York): Readily observable, not secret. 

• Circulating-library list (New York): Publicly available information. 

• Milk and ice cream routes (New York and other jurisdictions): Simple, observable, and publicly available information. 

10. Wholesale Customer Lists (General) 

• Wholesale Customer Lists Not Protected by Restrictive Covenants: Generally, wholesale customer lists are seldom protected without restrictive covenants. This is often because the potential customers for a product or service are easily identifiable and the class of customers is limited, making the information readily ascertainable. 

11. Specific Examples of Unprotected Wholesale Customer Lists 

• Customer Lists in Food, Textile, and Apparel Industries: These industries, even at the wholesale level, might be treated similarly to retail routes where potential customers are numerous, and the products are not particularly complex or distinct from competitive products. 

12. Court Decisions Denying Protection 

• California: 

• Maintenance-Supply Product Users: Lists of wholesale customers for maintenance-supply products were not protected because the customers were easily identifiable. 

• Customers for Maintenance and Repair of Computer Systems: Similar reasoning applied due to the ease of identifying customers. 

• Defense and Military Customers for Infrared Test Equipment: The specific customers were likely known to competitors. 

• Outdoor-Lighting Equipment Customers: The customers were easily discoverable, precluding trade secret protection. 

• Retail Automobile Dealers for Chrome Plating Services: The identities of these customers were publicly available. 

• Wholesale Dairy Customers: The identity of these customers was known within the industry. 

• New York: 

• Film-Exhibition Theaters: The identity of these theaters was readily identifiable from trade sources. 

• Television Broadcasters for Optical Retrofitting Services: Customers could be identified easily through public information. 

• Underwriters’ List of Brokers: Readily available, making it not secret. 

• Prospects for Commercial Real Estate: This information was likely obtainable through public records. 

• Wholesale Dairy Customers: The identity was known within the industry. 

• Architects and Building Contractors: These professionals were publicly listed, and their identities were easily obtainable. 

• Illinois: 

• Metal Treatment Formulas Users: Lists of customers using metal treatment formulas were not protected because the information was easily obtainable. 

• Construction Material Customers: The identity of these customers was publicly known. 

• Urethane Industrial Belts and Components Parts Users: The list was not protected as it was not kept confidential and was known to competitors. 

• Texas: 

• Mechanical and Plumbing Contractors: A list of customer contact persons was not protected because the information was readily available through prior employment in the industry. 

• Other Jurisdictions: 

• Utah: Denied protection to a list of customers consisting of clinical laboratories and hospitals, as these were readily available through public sources and trade journals. 

• Wisconsin: Denied protection to a list of industrial users of artificial sweeteners, as the customers were known to competitors. 

• Maine: Denied relief to a list of wholesale customers for a raw material, whose identity was generally obtainable from public sources. 

• New Jersey: Denied protection to wholesale customer lists for dry cleaning and tileboard, as these were easily identifiable. 

13. Federal Court Decisions 

• Second Circuit: 

• Knitwear and Underwear Customers: Identity was not protectable as it was publicly available. 

• Television Broadcasting Stations and Networks: Potential customers were easily identifiable. 

• Third Circuit: 

• Electrical Components Customers: Denied protection as the identity of customers was publicly known. 

• Sixth Circuit: 

• Semiconductors Trade Customers: The customer list was not protected as it was easily identifiable. 

• Seventh Circuit: 

• Cryogenic Products Trade Customers: Identity was publicly known, so not protected. 

• Ninth Circuit: 

• Electric Testing Instrument Purchasers: The identity of these customers was not protected due to public availability. 

14. Customer Lists and Information 

• Readily Available Information: 

• Real Estate Agents and Financial Institutions: Information about these entities is so readily available that it does not qualify as a trade secret, leading courts to decline enforcing restrictive covenants in such cases. 

• Cleaning Chemical Customers: When customers are readily ascertainable, such as in the cleaning chemicals industry, courts may deny protection, especially if the employee was familiar with these customers before employment. 

• Banks (Credit Insurance Customers): Courts have declined to protect customer lists for banks, as these are typically accessible and not confidential. 

• Drive-In Theaters, Local Beer Retailers, Commercial Enterprises: Similar to banks, these customer identities are not protectable under trade secret law because they are public knowledge. 

• Tour Bus Operators: A Vermont court noted that whether a customer list (tour bus operators) is a trade secret is a highly factual determination, implying that readily available customer lists might not be protected. 

• Casual Memory: 

• Salesperson’s Casual Memory: When customer identities are memorized casually rather than through a deliberate effort, courts may not enforce restrictive covenants, especially if the information is not secret. 

• General Availability: 

• Wholesale Customer Lists: Courts have expressed hesitancy to protect wholesale customer lists, especially where there is no element of confidentiality or if the list can be obtained by other means. 

15. Business Information 

• Publicly Available Information: 

• Trademarks: Trademarks are inherently public and thus incompatible with trade secret protection, as trade secrets require confidentiality. 

• Employee Knowledge of Competitors: Information about competitors that can be gleaned through improper means does not qualify as a trade secret. 

• General Business Know-How: General operational knowledge and business strategies, unless uniquely combined, are not protectable as trade secrets. 

• Insufficient Secrecy: 

• Merchandising Methods: Many merchandising methods do not meet the criteria for trade secret protection because they are commonly known or easily discoverable. 

• Sales Training Methods: Sales training techniques are often not considered trade secrets, possibly due to their widespread use and lack of originality. 

• Customer Requirements: Since customer needs are typically provided by the customers themselves and not generated by the business, they do not qualify as trade secrets. 

• Failure to Achieve Best Practices: 

• Production Automation: The fact that a company’s production process is not fully automated is not a trade secret, as it reflects a lack of optimal efficiency rather than a protected process. 

• Miscellaneous Business Information: 

• Minority Affirmative Action Programs: Data related to these programs does not typically receive trade secret protection under FOIA considerations. 

• General Business Ideas: Abstract ideas, such as a marketing strategy for direct mail services, lack the substantial content needed for trade secret protection. 

16. Professional Relationships 

• Client Relationships of Licensed Professionals: 

• Client Lists of Professionals (e.g., doctors, lawyers): Courts are more concerned with protecting the relationship between a professional and their clients rather than treating client lists as trade secrets. The lack of secrecy in the practice of professions often leads to the non-enforcement of restrictive covenants. 

• Ethical Considerations: Lawyers and other professionals are bound by ethical rules, which can render restrictive covenants unenforceable, especially if they conflict with the duty of confidentiality to clients. 

17. Systems, Methods, and Processes 

• General Systems and Methods: 

• Overly Broad Systems: Systems or methods that are too comprehensive and cover the entire business operation may not be protected as trade secrets, as this would essentially protect the entire business rather than specific secrets. 

• Public Knowledge and Improper Means: 

• Production Processes: Information obtained improperly about a competitor’s internal processes cannot be a trade secret for the gathering company. 

18. Cost and Pricing Information 

• Mixed Recognition: 

• Cost and Pricing Data: While some cases recognize cost and pricing information as trade secrets, others do not, depending on the level of secrecy involved. The variability in court decisions suggests that not all cost and pricing information is secret enough to warrant protection. 

19. Geophysical and Real Estate Information 

• Publicly Mandated Disclosure: 

• Geophysical Data: Though typically protected, geophysical data may be subject to mandatory disclosure under regulatory regimes, which can limit its protection as a trade secret. 

20. Miscellaneous 

• Commonly Known Employee Data: 

• Employee Data: Data that doesn’t vary significantly from what is generally known, such as employee tolerability to certain conditions, is not protectable as a trade secret. 

• Confidentiality Mislabeling: 

• File Memoranda: Simply labeling something as “Confidential” does not automatically make it a trade secret if the content is widely known or lacks true secrecy. 

General Explanation: 

• Commonality and Public Knowledge: A key reason many of these items are not considered trade secrets is that they involve processes, formulas, or techniques that are either common in the industry or publicly known. Trade secret protection generally requires that the information provides a competitive advantage due to its secrecy and is not readily accessible or known by others in the industry. 

• Lack of Competitive Advantage: If the information does not provide a significant competitive edge or if it is something that competitors can easily duplicate without proprietary knowledge, it typically will not qualify as a trade secret.