## Facts

- Buffets, Inc. and Evergreen Buffets, Inc. operated Old Country Buffet (OCB), a budget “all-you-can-eat” buffet restaurant chain using “small batch cooking” to maintain freshness.
- Dennis Scott developed early OCB menus and recipes, drawing in part on prior restaurant experience and existing recipes adapted for small-batch preparation.
- In 1989, Scott formed Evergreen Buffets and opened an OCB restaurant in Vancouver, Washington.
- Mark Miller worked for OCB and was later terminated for alleged financial improprieties.
- Paul, Carol, and Greg Klinke were experienced restaurateurs who sought to acquire an OCB franchise but were told OCB was not franchising.
- Buffets alleged the Klinkes used subterfuge and interactions with former OCB employees to obtain OCB recipes and job training manuals.
- The Klinkes opened a competing buffet restaurant, Granny’s Buffet, allegedly using OCB’s recipes and operational materials.
- Buffets sued under Washington’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) for misappropriation of trade secrets (recipes and job manuals) and under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the CPA claim and, after a bench trial, entered judgment for defendants on the UTSA trade-secret claims.

## Issues

1. Whether OCB’s recipes and job training manuals qualified as “trade secrets” under Washington UTSA, RCW 19.108.010(4).
2. Whether the alleged conduct supported UTSA relief for misappropriation if the materials were protectable trade secrets.
3. Whether defendants’ conduct constituted an unfair or deceptive act affecting the public interest under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.020.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court in full.
- The court held the recipes were not trade secrets because they did not derive independent economic value from secrecy and were generally known or readily ascertainable; the end product was unoriginal “basic American dishes” commonly served at buffets.
- The court held the job training manuals were not trade secrets because Buffets did not take reasonable measures to maintain their secrecy, including allowing broad employee access and permitting manuals to leave the premises.
- The court affirmed summary judgment on the CPA claim because Buffets failed to show the required public interest impact; the dispute was essentially a private competitor conflict without evidence that additional plaintiffs were likely to be injured in the same manner.

## Legal Principles

- Under Washington UTSA, information is a trade secret only if it (1) derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means, and (2) is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. RCW 19.108.010(4).
- Use of public-domain materials does not automatically defeat trade-secret status, but a plaintiff must show an original configuration and secrecy-based economic value rather than an unoriginal end product.
- Routine or commonly known recipes for standard dishes may fail the UTSA definition when they are unoriginal and readily ascertainable by proper means.
- Reasonable secrecy measures are required; broad distribution to employees without meaningful confidentiality controls can defeat trade-secret status even if materials have business usefulness.
- A Washington CPA claim by a private plaintiff requires, among other elements, a showing of public interest impact; a private commercial dispute between competitors generally does not satisfy this requirement absent evidence of broader consumer harm or likely repetition affecting others.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment for the defendants, concluding that OCB’s recipes and training manuals were not trade secrets under Washington UTSA due to lack of secrecy-based value and inadequate secrecy measures, and that the alleged misconduct did not support a Washington CPA claim because Buffets failed to show a public interest impact.


Buffets, Inc. v. Klinke, 73 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 1996)