Steak n Shake lawsuit 2026, Rafik Farouk lawsuit, Steak n Shake Freddy’s lawsuit, Steak n Shake trade secrets, confidential information lawsuit, Steak n Shake former executive, Freddy’s Frozen Custard lawsuit, business development lawsuit, Indiana trade secret law.
Legal note: This article discusses allegations contained in a newly filed lawsuit and publicly available legal materials. The allegations have not been proven in court, and the lawsuit should not be interpreted as a finding of wrongdoing by Rafik Farouk or Freddy’s Frozen Custard & Steakburgers.
The Steak ’n Shake confidential information lawsuit has quickly become one of the more closely watched restaurant-industry legal disputes of late summer 2026. The Indianapolis-based burger chain has sued former senior vice president of business development Rafik Farouk, alleging that confidential company information was improperly taken and potentially used in connection with his subsequent work for rival restaurant chain Freddy’s Frozen Custard & Steakburgers.
The case is particularly significant because the alleged information is not limited to a single recipe or traditional trade secret. According to the allegations reported from the complaint, the disputed material could include business plans, pricing and sales information, franchise opportunities, location information, lease agreements, marketing plans, intellectual property and other non-public company information.
The lawsuit was filed on August 28, 2026, in Marion Superior Court in Indiana, under the case name Steak n Shake, Inc. v. Rafik Farouk, case number 49D01-2608-CE-048104. The court docket identifies it as a commercial-court-eligible case and shows the complaint was filed that day. (Trellis Law)
The dispute matters beyond two competing burger chains. It highlights a growing concern for companies in franchising and other industries: what happens when a senior executive leaves for a direct competitor while possessing detailed knowledge of expansion plans, prospective locations, pricing, franchise relationships and other commercially sensitive information?
What Is the Steak ’n Shake Confidential Information Lawsuit About?
At its core, the lawsuit is about confidential business information and an alleged breach of contractual obligations.
Steak ’n Shake alleges that Farouk had access to sensitive information during his employment and that he later moved into a business-development role at Freddy’s. The company claims that information was transferred from his Steak ’n Shake account to his personal account before his departure and that some of the information was subsequently relevant to Freddy’s expansion efforts.
The allegations are important, but they remain allegations.
According to The Indiana Lawyer, Farouk left Steak ’n Shake in November 2025 and accepted a franchise-development position at Freddy’s in April 2026. Steak ’n Shake says it learned in June that Farouk was contacting at least two of its franchisee or business locations about potential Freddy’s restaurants. (The Indiana Lawyer)
The case escalated when Steak ’n Shake sent a cease-and-desist letter on July 2, 2026. According to the reported court allegations, the company demanded that Farouk and Freddy’s return Steak ’n Shake-owned assets within three days. Freddy’s attorneys responded, while Farouk himself reportedly did not respond to the letter. (The Indiana Lawyer)
Steak ’n Shake is now asking the court for an injunction to prevent the continued use of its confidential information.
That makes the case more than a dispute over an employee changing jobs. It is fundamentally about whether confidential information belonging to one restaurant company was obtained, retained or used in a way that violated contractual and trade-secret protections.
Who Is Rafik Farouk?
Rafik Farouk is an experienced restaurant and franchise-development executive.
Before joining Freddy’s, Farouk held senior positions in the restaurant industry, including experience with major brands such as P.F. Chang’s and Bloomin’ Brands, as well as a lengthy career connected with Chili’s, according to reports surrounding his appointment at Freddy’s.
His move to Freddy’s was publicly framed as a new stage in his career. Farouk himself announced the new chapter on LinkedIn, describing his role with Freddy’s and emphasizing the company’s growth ambitions. (LinkedIn)
That professional background is relevant to the lawsuit because Farouk’s expertise is precisely in business development, franchising and restaurant expansion.
Those activities depend heavily on information such as:
- Potential franchise locations
- Real-estate opportunities
- Market analysis
- Franchisee relationships
- Lease information
- Restaurant development plans
- Construction and development costs
- Pricing strategies
- Sales data
- Expansion priorities
- Marketing plans
For a restaurant franchise company, knowing where a competitor is actively pursuing a location can potentially provide a major competitive advantage.
That is why the alleged transfer and use of information is central to the lawsuit.
What Confidential Information Does Steak ’n Shake Say Was Involved?
The allegations described in public reporting indicate that the confidential-information provision in Farouk’s January 2025 code-of-conduct agreement covered a broad range of information.
According to The Indiana Lawyer, the agreement addressed non-public business, financial and personnel information, pricing and sales information, recipes, intellectual property and marketing plans. The complaint also reportedly identifies lease agreements, business plans and franchisee opportunities as information Farouk could access through his role. (The Indiana Lawyer)
Another report describing the allegations lists categories including:
- Non-public business information
- Financial information
- Personnel information
- Pricing information
- Sales information
- Franchisee information
- Business-location information
- Lease agreements
- Business plans
- Recipes
- Intellectual property
- Marketing plans
It is important to distinguish between confidential information and a legally recognized trade secret.
Not every piece of confidential company information automatically qualifies as a trade secret under Indiana law.
That distinction could become extremely important as this case progresses.
The January 2025 Agreement Could Be Central to the Case
According to the allegations, Farouk signed a code-of-conduct agreement in January 2025, several months before he left Steak ’n Shake.
The agreement reportedly prohibited disclosure of Steak ’n Shake’s confidential information and trade secrets to people outside the company. It also allegedly restricted taking company information for personal benefit or for the benefit of another entity.
The reported terms were intended to continue protecting the information after Farouk’s employment ended. (The Indiana Lawyer)
This could give Steak ’n Shake two related but distinct legal theories.
1. Breach of contract
Steak ’n Shake can argue that Farouk had contractual obligations concerning confidential information and that those obligations were violated.
2. Trade-secret misappropriation
If specific information qualifies as a trade secret under Indiana law, the company may also seek remedies under the Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
These theories overlap, but they are not identical.
A company does not necessarily have to prove that every disputed document is a trade secret to pursue a contractual confidentiality claim.
Why the Alleged Email Transfer Matters
One of the most significant allegations concerns the movement of information from Farouk’s Steak ’n Shake account to his personal account.
According to the lawsuit as reported by The Indiana Lawyer, Farouk emailed confidential information concerning Steak ’n Shake’s franchisee and business locations from his company account to his personal account while still employed by the company. (The Indiana Lawyer)
That allegation is potentially important because the timing can matter in a trade-secret dispute.
There is a major difference between:
“I remember how the industry works.”
and
“I copied a company’s internal documents containing specific non-public information.”
Employees inevitably take their general experience and professional knowledge with them when they change jobs. Companies generally cannot claim ownership over everything an experienced executive knows.
But deliberately transferring proprietary documents to a personal account can raise a very different set of legal questions.
The ultimate legal issue will include what the documents contained, why they were transferred, whether they were protected, what happened to them afterward and whether they were used or disclosed.
The Las Vegas Restaurant Opportunity
One of the more interesting developments involves a Las Vegas casino operator.
According to reporting based on the lawsuit, Steak ’n Shake learned in late August that Freddy’s, through Farouk, had been communicating with a Las Vegas casino operator about a potential restaurant opportunity.
The allegation becomes particularly significant because Steak ’n Shake was also pursuing the location.
In other words, the lawsuit is not merely claiming that Farouk joined a competitor.
Steak ’n Shake is alleging that a competitor, through its former executive, was pursuing a business opportunity that Steak ’n Shake itself was pursuing.
That is precisely the kind of situation in which confidential expansion information can become commercially valuable.
Still, an important question remains: Was the opportunity identified independently by Freddy’s, or was Steak ’n Shake’s confidential information used to identify or pursue it?
That distinction could become crucial.
Why Steak ’n Shake Wants an Injunction
Steak ’n Shake is seeking injunctive relief to stop the alleged use of its confidential information.
An injunction is different from simply asking for money after the damage has already happened.
The purpose can be preventive.
If a company believes confidential information is being used by a competitor, waiting for a final trial may not adequately protect the business. A competitor could potentially use the information to secure locations, approach franchisees, negotiate deals or make strategic decisions before the lawsuit reaches its conclusion.
Indiana’s trade-secret law specifically permits courts to enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation. It also allows courts in appropriate circumstances to require affirmative measures designed to protect trade secrets. (Justia Law)
That makes the requested injunction one of the most important aspects of the Steak ’n Shake lawsuit.
What Does Indiana Law Consider a Trade Secret?
Indiana law provides a specific definition.
Under Indiana Code § 24-2-3-2, a trade secret can include information such as a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process when it:
- Has independent economic value because it is not generally known or readily ascertainable through proper means; and
- Is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. (Justia Law)
This means that simply labeling something “confidential” does not automatically transform it into a trade secret.
There must generally be economic value associated with the secrecy, and the company must take reasonable measures to keep the information secret.
That is why internal controls, confidentiality agreements, access restrictions and company policies can become important evidence in trade-secret litigation.
What Is “Misappropriation”?
Indiana’s statutory definition of misappropriation covers more than simply stealing a physical document.
The statute addresses acquisition of a trade secret through improper means as well as unauthorized disclosure or use under circumstances where a person knew or should have known that the information was subject to a duty of secrecy or limited use. (Justia Law)
That could make the alleged employment agreement particularly relevant.
If Farouk had a contractual duty to maintain confidentiality and Steak ’n Shake can establish that certain information qualifies as a trade secret, the company could attempt to connect the contractual obligation with the alleged use or disclosure.
But again, the existence of the allegation does not establish liability.
The court will ultimately have to consider the evidence.
Could Steak ’n Shake Stop Rafik Farouk From Working for Freddy’s?
This is one of the biggest questions surrounding the case.
A confidentiality dispute does not automatically mean an employee is prohibited from working for a competitor.
People generally can change employers.
The more complicated question is whether the circumstances surrounding the employee’s knowledge and conduct create a legally recognizable threat of trade-secret disclosure or misuse.
Indiana courts have previously recognized that injunctions can, in appropriate circumstances, address employment with a competitor when necessary to protect trade secrets. In Ackerman v. Kimball International, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld an injunction involving employment with competitors where the circumstances supported a threat of disclosure following the employee’s handling of proprietary information. (Justia Law)
That precedent does not mean Steak ’n Shake automatically wins its request against Farouk.
Each case depends on its own facts.
The court will have to evaluate the evidence and the specific relief Steak ’n Shake is requesting.
Why the Freddy’s Connection Makes This Case More Important
Freddy’s is not an unrelated business.
It is another major burger-and-frozen-custard franchise brand pursuing growth.
That creates a direct competitive environment.
Farouk’s role at Freddy’s is reportedly focused on business development and growth, which is closely connected to the same areas he handled at Steak ’n Shake.
His public LinkedIn activity also reflects an active focus on Freddy’s growth and development opportunities. (LinkedIn)
That does not establish that confidential Steak ’n Shake information was used.
But it helps explain why Steak ’n Shake is concerned about protecting its information.
Steak ’n Shake and Freddy’s Are Both Focused on Expansion
The lawsuit comes at an interesting moment for both brands.
Steak ’n Shake has been working through a major business transformation under Biglari Holdings. The company has changed its menu strategy, expanded franchising initiatives and attempted to rebuild sales momentum.
Recent reporting indicates that Steak ’n Shake’s same-store sales increased significantly in 2025 and into 2026, even while the company’s overall store footprint remained smaller than it had been several years earlier. (Barron’s)
Freddy’s, meanwhile, has been pursuing substantial expansion of its own.
That means restaurant locations and franchise opportunities can be extremely valuable.
For a franchise company, a prospective site isn’t merely an address.
It can represent:
- A future restaurant
- A franchise agreement
- Real-estate negotiations
- Local market penetration
- Long-term royalty revenue
- Brand visibility
- Competitive positioning
If confidential information identifies where a rival intends to expand, that information could potentially have significant commercial value.
Is This a Trade Secret Lawsuit or a Breach-of-Contract Lawsuit?
The answer may be both, depending on how the case develops.
The reported lawsuit centers on breach of contractual confidentiality obligations.
But Steak ’n Shake’s request for an injunction also brings trade-secret principles into the discussion.
These are related but distinct concepts.
Confidential information
A company may contractually define certain information as confidential and impose restrictions on how an employee can use it.
Trade secrets
Trade secrets receive statutory protection when they meet the legal requirements for economic value and reasonable secrecy measures.
Contractual obligations
An employee may have signed an agreement promising not to disclose or misuse company information.
A lawsuit can potentially involve all three.
What Happens Next in the Steak ’n Shake Lawsuit?
The lawsuit is still in its early stages.
As of September 6, 2026, there has been no final judicial determination establishing that Farouk misappropriated Steak ’n Shake trade secrets.
The case was filed on August 28 and remains pending. (Trellis Law)
The next stages could include:
Court filings
The defendant may respond to the complaint and challenge Steak ’n Shake’s allegations.
Injunction proceedings
The court could consider Steak ’n Shake’s request for immediate restrictions concerning the alleged confidential information.
Discovery
Both sides could seek documents, communications, emails and other evidence concerning what information was accessed, transferred, retained or used.
Evidence concerning the alleged opportunities
Communications involving franchisees, landlords, developers and prospective restaurant sites could become important.
Possible settlement
Commercial litigation can sometimes be resolved before a full trial, particularly when the parties have an ongoing business relationship or when confidentiality concerns make prolonged litigation costly.
Trial or dispositive motions
If the case is not resolved, the court could eventually decide claims through motions or a trial.
What Evidence Could Determine the Outcome?
The most important evidence may be electronic.
Potentially relevant material could include:
- Company email records
- Personal email records
- File-transfer logs
- Computer forensic evidence
- Cloud-storage activity
- Documents allegedly transferred
- Franchise-development records
- Location lists
- Lease negotiations
- Communications with franchisees
- Communications with prospective landlords
- Communications involving Freddy’s
- Employment agreements
- Confidentiality policies
- Internal access controls
The question will not simply be whether Farouk possessed knowledge about Steak ’n Shake.
A senior executive naturally develops professional knowledge during years in the restaurant industry.
The more significant questions are likely to be what specific information was involved, whether it was legally protected, how it was obtained, whether it was retained, whether it was disclosed or used, and what competitive advantage allegedly resulted.
The Difference Between General Knowledge and Company Secrets
This distinction is critical for understanding executive departures.
Suppose an executive knows that a certain type of restaurant location generally performs well.
That could be ordinary professional knowledge.
Now suppose the executive possesses an internal spreadsheet showing:
- 100 specific prospective locations
- Lease terms
- Projected sales
- Franchisee identities
- Negotiation status
- Planned opening dates
- Internal pricing assumptions
That could be substantially different.
Companies generally cannot prevent employees from using their professional experience.
They can, under appropriate circumstances, protect legitimate confidential information and trade secrets.
The Steak ’n Shake case will therefore likely revolve around the boundaries between experience and information.
Could Freddy’s Be Held Responsible?
The lawsuit reportedly focuses on Farouk, but Freddy’s could still be relevant to the factual and legal dispute because the allegations concern his activities after joining the competing company.
An important issue could be what Freddy’s knew about the information and when it knew it.
There is a significant difference between:
A former employee independently develops a business opportunity based on industry experience.
and:
A former employee provides a competitor with proprietary documents, and the competitor knowingly uses them.
The evidence will matter enormously.
At this point, public reporting does not establish that Freddy’s knowingly received or used stolen trade secrets.
The allegations should therefore be treated as allegations rather than established facts.
This Is Not the First Steak ’n Shake Confidentiality Dispute
The 2026 case is not the first time Steak ’n Shake has been involved in litigation involving confidential or proprietary information.
In earlier litigation, Steak ’n Shake used confidentiality and noncompetition provisions in franchise agreements. In a 2013 federal case involving franchisees, the court granted preliminary relief that included an order prohibiting the use of Steak ’n Shake confidential or proprietary information and requiring its return. (Justia Law)
Another federal case involving Steak ’n Shake franchise relationships described proprietary information concerning restaurant standards, specifications, operations and procedures. (vLex)
These earlier cases demonstrate why confidential information has long been an important part of Steak ’n Shake’s franchise system.
But they are separate cases and should not be confused with the current Farouk litigation.
Why the Case Matters to the Restaurant Industry
The lawsuit has implications well beyond Steak ’n Shake and Freddy’s.
Restaurant companies increasingly depend on information that is valuable precisely because competitors cannot easily see it.
For franchisors, this can include:
- Development pipelines
- Franchisee leads
- Real-estate opportunities
- Market-entry plans
- Sales forecasts
- Unit economics
- Construction budgets
- Franchise pricing
- Marketing strategies
- Customer data
- Supplier arrangements
When a senior executive leaves, companies must balance two competing interests.
They need to protect their proprietary information.
At the same time, they cannot necessarily claim ownership over an employee’s entire professional skill set.
The Steak ’n Shake lawsuit illustrates how complicated that boundary can become.
What Does the Lawsuit Mean for Employees Moving to Competitors?
For executives and employees, the case provides an important reminder: changing jobs is not the same thing as taking company information.
Employees moving between competing businesses should carefully review:
- Confidentiality agreements
- Employment contracts
- Intellectual-property agreements
- Non-solicitation provisions
- Trade-secret policies
- Data-retention requirements
- Company-device policies
- Return-of-property obligations
They should also be careful about moving company files to personal email, cloud storage or personal devices.
Even when an employee believes the information is harmless, transferring company documents can create serious legal complications.
What Does the Lawsuit Mean for Employers?
Employers also have responsibilities.
A company seeking trade-secret protection generally benefits from being able to demonstrate that it actually treated sensitive information as confidential.
That can include:
- Access restrictions
- Password protection
- Confidentiality agreements
- Employee training
- Document classifications
- Restricted databases
- Need-to-know policies
- Monitoring and audit systems
- Exit procedures
Indiana’s statutory definition specifically requires that a trade secret be subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. (Justia Law)
That requirement makes internal information-security practices potentially important in litigation.
What Damages Could Be at Stake?
The financial consequences of trade-secret litigation can vary substantially.
Indiana’s trade-secret framework provides for monetary remedies in appropriate cases, including damages associated with loss and, in certain circumstances, benefits obtained through the misappropriation.
Willful and malicious conduct can potentially lead to enhanced damages and attorney-fee consequences under the statute.
But the amount, if any, that could ultimately be awarded in the Farouk case cannot currently be predicted from the publicly available information.
The current focus appears to include injunctive relief designed to prevent continued use of the allegedly confidential information.
Will Steak ’n Shake Win the Lawsuit?
It is too early to say.
The complaint establishes what Steak ’n Shake alleges, not what a court has found to be true.
For Steak ’n Shake to prevail on the relevant claims, the company will need to establish the applicable elements of its claims with evidence.
Potentially important questions include:
- What documents or information did Farouk allegedly transfer?
- Were those materials actually confidential?
- Did any of them qualify as trade secrets?
- What contractual duties applied to Farouk?
- Was the information used after he left?
- Was it provided to Freddy’s?
- Did Freddy’s know the information was confidential?
- Did Steak ’n Shake suffer an identifiable competitive or financial injury?
- Is immediate injunctive relief justified?
Those questions cannot be answered simply by looking at the fact that Farouk moved from one restaurant company to another.
The Bigger Business Story Behind the Lawsuit
The Steak ’n Shake confidential information lawsuit arrives at a particularly important time for the restaurant industry.
Both Steak ’n Shake and Freddy’s are competing for franchise growth, locations and consumers.
Steak ’n Shake is attempting to build on a turnaround strategy that has included major operational and branding changes. Recent reporting says same-store sales increased in 2026, while the chain continues to operate a smaller footprint than it did several years ago. (Barron’s)
Freddy’s has also been expanding aggressively, with its development strategy extending beyond conventional restaurant sites into additional venue types and markets. Farouk’s own public professional activity emphasizes the brand’s growth ambitions. (LinkedIn)
That makes information about where to grow potentially just as important as information about what to sell.
In modern franchising, a prospective location can be a strategic asset.
A competitor who knows which sites another chain wants could potentially alter negotiations, approach the same property or accelerate its own development plans.
That is why the allegations in this case have attracted attention.
Steak ’n Shake Confidential Information Lawsuit: Key Facts at a Glance
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Steak ’n Shake, Inc. |
| Defendant | Rafik Farouk |
| Court | Marion Superior Court, Indiana |
| Case number | 49D01-2608-CE-048104 |
| Filed | August 28, 2026 |
| Main allegation | Breach of confidentiality obligations and alleged misuse of company information |
| Former role | Senior Vice President of Business Development at Steak ’n Shake |
| New company | Freddy’s Frozen Custard & Steakburgers |
| Key information allegedly involved | Business, financial, franchise, location, pricing, sales, lease and marketing information |
| Major requested remedy | Injunction preventing use of Steak ’n Shake confidential information |
| Current status | Pending |
| Finding of wrongdoing? | No final finding; allegations remain disputed/unproven |
The filing date and case number are reflected in available court-record reporting. (Trellis Law)
Latest Update on the Steak ’n Shake Lawsuit
As of September 6, 2026, the Steak ’n Shake lawsuit against Rafik Farouk remains an active and recently filed commercial dispute.
The lawsuit was filed August 28 in Marion Superior Court. Steak ’n Shake alleges that Farouk violated confidentiality obligations and improperly used company information after joining Freddy’s. The company is seeking court intervention to prevent further use of the allegedly confidential information. (Trellis Law)
The reported allegations include the transfer of company information to Farouk’s personal account while he was still employed, subsequent contacts involving franchise or business locations, and a later Las Vegas development opportunity that Steak ’n Shake says it was also pursuing. (Dining and Cooking)
There has not yet been a final court ruling determining whether Farouk misappropriated Steak ’n Shake’s trade secrets.
That distinction is essential.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Steak ’n Shake confidential information lawsuit?
It is a 2026 Indiana lawsuit filed by Steak ’n Shake against former senior business-development executive Rafik Farouk. Steak ’n Shake alleges that Farouk violated confidentiality obligations and improperly used company information after joining rival restaurant chain Freddy’s.
When was the Steak ’n Shake lawsuit filed?
The lawsuit was filed on August 28, 2026, in Marion Superior Court in Indiana. (Trellis Law)
Who is Rafik Farouk?
Rafik Farouk is a veteran restaurant and franchise-development executive who moved from Steak ’n Shake to Freddy’s Frozen Custard & Steakburgers.
What confidential information is allegedly involved?
Reported allegations identify categories including non-public business and financial information, pricing and sales data, franchise opportunities, location information, lease agreements, business plans, recipes, intellectual property and marketing plans. (The Indiana Lawyer)
Did Rafik Farouk steal Steak ’n Shake trade secrets?
That has not been established by a court. Steak ’n Shake has made allegations in its lawsuit, but the case is pending.
Is Freddy’s being sued?
The current case publicly identified in the court records is Steak n Shake, Inc. v. Rafik Farouk. Freddy’s is relevant to the allegations because Farouk joined the company and the lawsuit concerns alleged activities connected to his new role. (Trellis Law)
What does Steak ’n Shake want from the court?
The company is seeking an injunction intended to stop Farouk from using its confidential information. (The Indiana Lawyer)
Can a company stop an employee from working for a competitor?
Not automatically. But Indiana law allows courts to address actual or threatened trade-secret misappropriation through injunctive relief in appropriate circumstances. (Justia Law)
What happens next?
The defendant can respond to the lawsuit, the parties may litigate the requested injunction, and discovery may examine emails, documents, communications and other evidence relevant to the allegations.
Final Takeaway
The Steak ’n Shake confidential information lawsuit is much more than a story about one restaurant executive changing employers.
It is a developing legal battle over one of the most valuable assets a modern franchise company can possess: strategic information.
Steak ’n Shake alleges that former executive Rafik Farouk had access to sensitive information, transferred certain information to a personal account and later used information connected to Steak ’n Shake’s business opportunities while working for Freddy’s. The company has asked an Indiana court for an injunction to protect its confidential information. (Dining and Cooking)
But the other side of the story is equally important: these are allegations, not a final judgment.
The eventual outcome will depend on evidence showing what information was actually involved, whether it legally qualified for protection, what contractual obligations existed, whether the information was used or disclosed, and what role the competing business played.
For the restaurant and franchise industry, the case offers a broader lesson. In an increasingly data-driven business environment, a restaurant company’s competitive advantage may reside not only in its recipes, brand or menu, but also in its location pipeline, franchise relationships, pricing strategy, development plans and internal business intelligence.
That is precisely why the legal battle between Steak ’n Shake and its former executive could become an important case to watch throughout the remainder of 2026.
The case remains pending, and this article will require updating as the court issues new orders or the parties file additional pleadings.
Sources and further reading
- The Indiana Lawyer — Steak ’n Shake accuses former executive of taking confidential information
- Indiana Code § 24-2-3-2 — Trade secret definitions
- Indiana Code § 24-2-3-3 — Injunctions against misappropriation
- Indiana Commercial Court Treatise — Trade-secret remedies
Read Also –