and techs unfamiliar with Advantor products,” signaling that he viewed the information as unique to Advantor. By contrast, DRS asserts—without definitive evidence—that these concepts are “known by any experienced technician.” Further, the confidentiality provision of Larson’s employment agreement supports an argument that Advanfor maintained the secrecy of the Larson Information. The provision prohibited use of any information deemed “confidential” “for any reason other than ... for the benefit of Advantor.” This prohibition extended “indefinitely after Larson quit his job at Advantor. Under Florida law, the Provision was sufficient to demonstrate that Advantor took “reasonable” efforts to maintain the secrecy (if any) of the Larson Information. See, e.g., Premier Lab, 10 So.3d at 206 (<HOLDING>). But we are unclear whether any information
holding that disclosure of trade secret without protection of express confidentiality agreement was not fatal to trade secret protection where disclosure occurred during sale negotiation 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 that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation 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 an employee whose disability is related to his ability to perform the duties of his position is not disabled under the act and therefore an employer has no duty to accommodate