Ohio Admin. Code 3750-60-50 - Sufficiency of assertions
(A) A substantiation submitted under rule
3750-60-20
of the Administrative Code will be determined to be insufficient to support a
claim for trade secrecy, unless the answers to the questions in the
substantiation submitted under paragraphs (B) and (C) of rule
3750-60-20
of the Administrative Code support all the following conclusions. This
substantiation must include, where applicable, specific facts.
(1) The claimant has not disclosed the
information to any other person, other than an officer or employee of the
United States or a state or local government or an employee or other person who
is bound by a confidentiality agreement, and the claimant has taken reasonable
measures to protect the confidentiality of such information and intends to
continue to take such measures. To support this assertion, the facts
established in the substantiation must support all of the following:
(a) The claimant has taken reasonable
measures to prevent unauthorized disclosure of the specific chemical identity
and will continue to take such measures.
(b) The claimant has not disclosed the
specific chemical identity to any person who is not bound by an agreement to
refrain from disclosing the information.
(c) The claimant has not previously disclosed
the specific chemical identity to a local, state, or federal government entity
without asserting a confidentiality claim.
(2) The information is not required to be
disclosed, or otherwise made available, to the public under any other federal
or state law.
(3) Disclosure of
the information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position
of the claimant. To support this assertion, the facts must support all of the
following:
(a) Competitors do not know or the
claimant is not aware that competitors know that the chemical whose identity is
being claimed trade secret can be used in the fashion that the claimant uses it
and competitors cannot easily duplicate the specific use of this chemical
through their own research and development activities; or competitors are not
aware or the claimant does not know whether competitors are aware that the
claimant is using this chemical in this fashion.
(b) The fact that the claimant manufactures,
imports or otherwise uses this chemical in a particular fashion is not
contained in any publication or other information source (of which the claimant
is aware) available to competitors or the public.
(c) The sanitized version of the submission
under this rule does not contain sufficient information to enable competitors
to determine the specific chemical identity withheld therefrom.
(d) The information claimed as a trade secret
is of value to competitors.
(e)
Competitors are likely to use the trade secret information to the economic
detriment of the claimant and are not precluded from doing so by a United
States patent.
(f) The resulting
harm to claimant's competitive position would be substantial.
(4) The chemical identity is not
readily discoverable through reverse engineering. To support this conclusion,
the facts asserted must show that competitors cannot readily discover the
specific chemical identity by analysis of the claimant's product or
environmental releases.
(B) The sufficiency of the trade secret claim
shall be decided entirely upon the information submitted under rules
3750-60-20
or
3750-60-43
of the Administrative Code.
Notes
Rule promulgated under: RC Chapter 119.
Rule authorized by: RC 3750.02(B)(1)(i), 3750.02(B)(2)(d), 3750.02(B)(5), 3750.02(B)(14)
Rule amplifies: RC 3750.09
State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.
No prior version found.