Defendants is noteworthy either for its lack of corroboration or for its questionable relevance. Most of the deposition testimony offered by the Defendants in opposition to Smarts’ motion comes from interested Avesta employees or principals, and remains uncorroborated. As but one example among many, the Defendants offer the testimony of Avesta employee and former Morgan Stanley employee Robert Kostes for the proposition that Morgan Stanley demonstrated Delphi to a firm called Parc-Place, showing ParcPlace Delphi’s “GUI,” (graphical user interface), its “functionality,” and operation. However, nowhere in the record does any specific, admissible corroboration of this testimony appear. No testimony from any ParcPlace employee appears in the voluminous de 721 F.2d 1540, 1549 (Fed.Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp., 26 F.Supp.2d 492,
holding that operation of centrifuge in nih laboratory without any discernable effort to maintain the centrifuge as confidential constituted public use noting that those who observed the centrifuge in operation were under no duty to maintain it as confidential holding that the lack of a confidentiality agreement does not necessarily defeat an argument that information is a trade secret because where an employee acquires during the course of his employment a special technique or process developed by his employer he is under a duty to keep it confidential holding that access to confidential information didnt transform janitorial staff into confidential employees under branti holding that use of teflonstretching machine was not public use within meaning of section 102b noting that employees were told to keep machine confidential and that budd did not keep the machine hidden from employees legally bound to keep their knowledge confidential does not evidence a failure to maintain the secret holding records did not qualify as exempt confidential commercial information under exemption 4 because the information was not actually confidential