La demanderesse, une société des Etats-Unis, accuse le défendeur, un groupe chapeauté par une société italienne, d'avoir eu un comportement fautif à l'expiration d'un contrat de licence qui les liait. Le défendeur aurait conservé des dessins et employé les connaissances techniques qu'il avait acquises pour concurrencer son ancien donneur de licence. Une telle attitude aurait constitué « un détournement frauduleux de secrets de fabrication, violant les principes généraux du droit et l'équité, y compris le droit des Etats-Unis et du Connecticut ». Pour se défendre, le défendeur soutient que les demandes sont prescrites.

• Loi applicable

• Prescription

• Violation de secrets de fabrication

'1. [Respondent] claims that the Connecticut Statutory limitation period of three years for infringement of trade secrets had run against [Claimant] before this arbitration was started.

2. [Claimant] argues that it is the Connecticut contract statute of limitation that applies, with a period of six years; and the Italian statute of limitations for torts, also six years. A six year limitation period has not run.

3. We apply the preponderant authorities under Connecticut law, in holding that the limitation law of the place where the wrong was committed applies in the absence of special circumstances. [Refer particularly to O'Connor v. O'Connor, Supreme Court of Connecticut, 196 Conn. 812; 495 A.2d 280, 1985.]

The circumstances in this case are in favour of choosing the law of Italy, where the wrong was committed of keeping and using drawings instead of dispatching them to [Claimant] at the end of the License Agreement -

The alleged wrong in this case is defendant's wrongful use of the trade secrets rather than a wrongful procurement of the information. Defendant's wrongful use occurred at defendant's Bloomington, Indiana principal place of business where the information was used to develop and manufacture defendant's version of the Littleford introducer sets . . . Therefore . . . the cause of action arose in Indiana where the wrong occurred, and the Indiana Statute of Limitations should be applied. [Tyler Refrigeration Corp. v. Kysor Industrial Corp, 220 US PQ 1033.]

The tort in this case occurred . . . after Smith and Keay left Connecticut and went to Florida where they disclosed trade secrets to Paul and then commenced to employ the confidential information . . . the place of the wrong (locus delicti) was in Florida not Connecticut. [Connecticut Aircraft Corp. v. Smith 220 USPQ 1030.]

4. Consequently, we hold that no statute of limitations has run against a [Claimant] claim.'