![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/018-cover-734x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nTheory and practice of intellectual property
\u2116 2 \/ 2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ISSN (Print) 2308-0361
ISSN (Online) 2519-2744<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/test.inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/free-icon-pdf-201153.png\"){kind=icon}
PDF (Ukrainian)<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nDOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/22019.167295<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Published \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a02019-05-16<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n The identification of trade secret elements: United States v. Chung<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Andrii Hachkevych<\/strong> Tetyana Kazarian<\/strong> Abstract Keywords: <\/strong>features of a trade secret, judicial practice, United States v. Chung, Economic Espionage Act, reasonable measures<\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0420\u0456\u0448\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0422\u0438\u043c\u0447\u0430\u0441\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0457 \u0430\u0434\u043c\u0456\u043d\u0456\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u043a\u043e\u043b\u0435\u0433\u0456\u0457 \u0410\u043d\u0442\u0438\u043c\u043e\u043d\u043e\u043f\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0456\u0442\u0435\u0442\u0443 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438 \u00ab\u041f\u0440\u043e \u043f\u043e\u0440\u0443\u0448\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u043e\u0434\u0430\u0432\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u043e \u0437\u0430\u0445\u0438\u0441\u0442 \u0432\u0456\u0434 \u043d\u0435\u0434\u043e\u0431\u0440\u043e\u0441\u043e\u0432\u0456\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u043a\u043e\u043d\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0435\u043d\u0446\u0456\u0457 \u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430\u043a\u043b\u0430\u0434\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0448\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0444\u0443\u00bb. \u0410\u043d\u0434\u0440\u043e\u0449\u0443\u043a \u0413. \u041e. \u0417\u0430\u0445\u0438\u0441\u0442 \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0435\u0440\u0446\u0456\u0439\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u0442\u0430\u0454\u043c\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0456 \u0432 \u0421\u0428\u0410: \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u0438\u0434\u0456\u044f \u0435\u043a\u043e\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0456\u0447\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0443 \u0448\u043f\u0438\u0433\u0443\u043d\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0443 \/\/ \u041d\u0430\u0443\u043a\u0430 \u0442\u0430 \u0456\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0430\u0446\u0456\u0457. \u0422. 9. \u2116 1. 2013. \u0421. 80\u201395.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0410\u043d\u0434\u0440\u043e\u0449\u0443\u043a \u0413. \u041e. \u0417\u0430\u0445\u0438\u0441\u0442 \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0435\u0440\u0446\u0456\u0439\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u0442\u0430\u0454\u043c\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0456 \u0432 \u0421\u0428\u0410: \u0435\u043a\u043e\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0456\u0447\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u0432\u043f\u043b\u0438\u0432 \u0456 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u043a\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0437\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0441\u0443\u0432\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f \/\/ \u0422\u0435\u043e\u0440\u0456\u044f \u0456 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u043a\u0430 \u0456\u043d\u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0456. \u21161. 2016. \u0421. 76\u201385.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Code of Federal Regulations. Part 1910. Revised as of July 1, 1998. \u2013 Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1998. 584 p.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Uniform Trade Secrets Act with 1985 Amendments \/\/ World Intellectual Property Organization. Economic Espionage Act of 1996 \/\/ U.S. Government Publishing Office. Goldman E. The New ‘Defend Trade Secrets Act’ Is The Biggest IP Development In Years \/ Eric Goldmen \/\/ Forbes Media LLC. United States v. Chung \/\/ The Trade Secrets Institute at Brooklyn Law School. Bhattacharjee Y. A New Kind of Spy \/\/ The New Yorker Magazine. Memorandum of decision of US District Court of the Central District of California (Southern Division). United States of America (Plaintiff) vs. Dongfan \u00abGreg\u00bb Chung (Defendant) \/\/ CourtListener from Free Law Project. Opinion by Judge Graber. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. United States of America (Plaintiff-Appellee) vs. Dongfan \u00abGreg\u00bb Chung (Defendant-Appellant) \/\/ The Trade Secrets Institute at Brooklyn Law School. Theory and practice of intellectual property\u2116 2 \/ 2019 ISSN (Print) 2308-0361ISSN (Online) 2519-2744 DOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/22019.167295 Published \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a02019-05-16 The identification of trade secret elements: United States v. Chung Andrii HachkevychUkraine Tetyana KazarianUkraine AbstractThis article examines the legal nature of a trade secret. The term \u00abtrade secret\u00bb has been being developed by common law and statute […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-10674","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10674","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10674"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10674\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10676,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10674\/revisions\/10676"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10674"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/CC-2.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Ukraine<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ukraine<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/strong>This article examines the legal nature of a trade secret. The term \u00abtrade secret\u00bb has been being developed by common law and statute law within the legal system of the United States, especially the Uniform Trade Secrets Act of 1979 and the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. The differences between their scopes of application are considered along with the features of a trade secret being embodied therein. The question of trade secret protection is discussed on the basis of the case \u00abUnited States v. Chung\u00bb, which has become the first conviction under EEA. It may be refered to as a vivid example of explaining the circumstances of trade secret infringement. Considering the results of the research one can understand how legal norms related to trade secrets are practically applied and in which way a plaintiff, whose rights were violated, can ground his or her position that the information being the subject of claims contains a trade secret.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/www.amc.gov.ua\/amku\/doccatalog\/document?id=146643&schema=main<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/edocs\/lexdocs\/laws\/en\/us\/us034en.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.govinfo.gov\/content\/pkg\/PLAW-104publ294\/pdf\/PLAW-104publ294.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/ericgoldman\/2016\/04\/28\/the-new-defend-trade-secrets-act-is-the-biggest-ip-development-in-years<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/tsi.brooklaw.edu\/cases\/united-states-v-chung<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/magazine\/2014\/05\/05\/a-new-kind-of-spy<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.courtlistener.com\/recap\/gov.uscourts.cacd.407663.116.0.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
http:\/\/tsi.brooklaw.edu\/sites\/tsi.brooklaw.edu\/files\/filings\/united-states-v-chung\/20110926ninth-circuit-appellate-decision.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"