## Facts

- Aquatec designed and manufactured water coolers and hired Boris Pribich as an engineer to help develop a new “New Century” model using a thermoelectric chip rather than freon.
- Aquatec’s executive vice president required Pribich to draft and follow a project schedule and provided staff support, workspace, and permission to work at home on his personal computer.
- As Pribich fell behind schedule, Aquatec brought in another employee and asked Pribich to return to the office with all project files so the replacement could continue the work.
- Pribich became upset, deleted some files that he claimed were personal, and left the job.
- Aquatec contacted police; officers executed a search warrant on Pribich’s home computer and seized printouts including a copy of the work schedule and other technical concepts and materials.
- At trial, Aquatec’s executive testified competitors would be interested in the materials and that he did not want competitors to have Pribich’s schedule.
- A defense expert testified the seized information would not give a competitor a real competitive advantage and that current scientific principles did not yet permit the commercially viable product Aquatec envisioned.
- The prosecution ultimately treated the work schedule as the principal “trade secret” allegedly stolen.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the element that the schedule and related materials constituted a “trade secret” for purposes of Penal Code § 499c(b)(2), including that the information had independent economic value from not being generally known.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the conviction.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the schedule (and related seized material) qualified as a trade secret under Penal Code § 499c.
- Because reversal rested on evidentiary insufficiency on an element, the judgment was set aside rather than remanded for retrial.

## Legal Principles

- A conviction for theft of trade secrets under Penal Code § 499c(b)(2) requires proof that the information taken, copied, or retained is in fact a trade secret, not merely employer-owned or treated as confidential.
- Trade secret status requires evidence that the information derives independent economic value (or competitive significance) from not being generally known, along with evidence consistent with maintaining secrecy.
- An employer witness’s subjective assertion that competitors would be interested, or that the employer would prefer competitors not receive the information, is inadequate by itself to establish the independent-economic-value element.
- On sufficiency review, a conviction cannot stand if no reasonable trier of fact could find each statutory element proven beyond a reasonable doubt when the record lacks concrete evidence of competitive advantage or economic value.

## Conclusion

The conviction for theft of trade secrets was reversed because the prosecution failed to present substantial evidence that the project schedule (the item relied upon at trial) had the independent economic value required for trade secret status under Penal Code § 499c(b)(2), and employer concern about competitor access did not substitute for proof of that element.


People v. Pribich, 21 Cal. App. 4th 1844, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 113 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)