Dy

Pursuant to statute (§ 35-51 (b) (2) (B) (iii)), ''misappropriation'' of a trade secret is defined in relevant part as the ''use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who . . . at the time of . . . use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was . . . derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use . . . .'' The plaintiff, which develops, manufactures and sells resinous flooring sys- tems, sought to recover damages from the individual defendants J, K, L, S, and the corporate defendants A Co., D Co., E Co., I Co., M Co., and P Co., in connection with their alleged misappropriation of the plaintiff's trade secrets. S was employed by the plaintiff as a research chemist and helped develop a product known as Poly-Crete. Several years after hiring S, who was an at-will employee, the plaintiff required him to sign a noncompete agreement as a condition of his continued employment. The noncompete agreement prohibited S from disclosing or using any of the plaintiff's trade secrets and from competing with the plaintiff for two years following the termination of his employment. Although S signed the agreement, he then established his own floor coating business, A Co., before resigning from his employment with the plaintiff. S also constructed a laboratory, where he developed formulas for flooring systems, and hired J as an assistant. After resigning, S contacted K, the president of E Co., a floor installation company and longtime customer of the plaintiff. E Co. agreed to test S's products in exchange for a discount on future purchases, but all of S's products that E Co. tested had significant problems. S also agreed to act as a consultant for I Co., which installs a flooring system known as Indu- Crete, for a monthly fee. I Co. did not manufacture its own resin and hardener at the time but was interested in doing so. S and J eventually develop