NC · jury_instructions
N.C.P.I.—Civil 813.94
MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRET - DEFENSE TO MISAPPROPRIATION.
The (state number) issue reads:
"Did the defendant acquire the trade secret [by independent
development] [by reverse engineering] [from another person who had the
right to disclose the trade secret]?"
You will answer this issue only if you have answered the (state
number) issue(s) "Yes" in favor of the plaintiff.
On this issue the burden of proof is on the defendant. This means
the defendant must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that he
acquired the trade secret [by independent development] [by reverse
engineering] [from another person who had the right to disclose the trade
secret].2
Finally, as to this (state number) issue on which the defendant has
the burden of proof, if you find by the greater weight of the evidence that
the defendant acquired the trade secret [by independent development]
[by reverse engineering] [from another person who had the right to
disclose the trade secret], then it would be your duty to answer this issue
"Yes" in favor of the defendant.
If, on the other hand, you fail to so find, then it would be your duty
to answer this issue "No" in favor of the plaintiff.
History
N.C.P.I.—Civil 813.94 (June 2013). Prepared by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges' Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions, assisted by the UNC School of Government; published by the School of Government.
Provenance
- Source
- sog.unc.edu
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
b8f89b793002e5e777ad0d44b421c8cc915800d61a1ace6ca70698f3a73d7b68
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.