was not made available on the Internet until 2004, after Cerner purportedly misappropriated the Gap Analysis and the Future Features List, and is no longer available. For these reasons, the Court finds the Gap Analysis and the Future Features List are trade secrets. Material factual disputes remain as to whether Cerner used the Gap Analysis and/or the Future Features List in the research and development of INET Virtual without Visicu’s consent. See 02 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 399 F.Supp.2d 1064, 1072 (N.D.Cal.2005) (finding one “uses” a trade secret when one considers the trade secret in conducting research and development, experimentation, manufacturing, production, marketing, or solicitation of customers); Garth v. Staktek Corp., 876 S.W.2d 545 (Tex.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). See also Vermont Microsystems, Inc. v.
holding that whether a product is within comment k should be determined on a case by case basis where it is shown that the product is unavoidably unsafe and product of exceptional social need holding that where the defendants expert described the product design using superlatives namely the safest design you could possibly put on the machine the plaintiff should have been permitted to impeach the expert by inquiring why the safest design possible was modified following the plaintiffs accident holding that using a trade secret to produce a design for which a patent application is then submitted and using a product design to procure financing for development of that product constitute use holding that the shape of a product was not an advertising idea because there was no allegation in the complaint that the design itself was a trademark or was intended to distinguish the product from others that might enter the market citation omitted holding that in order to submit a claim for punitive damages to a jury in a product liability action a plaintiff is required to produce evidence of actual knowledge