In September 1997, LinkCo met with Fujitsu to discuss possible cooperation, but these negotiations were unsuccessful. See Linkco, 2002 WL 237838, at `1. Although LinkCo and Fujitsu met without a confidentiality agreement, LinkCo Fujitsu provided only a general overview of its strategy and business objectives. See Pl. Exs. 1, 67. To succeed with a right to a misappropriation of trade secrets under New York law, a complainant must prove “that he had a trade secret and (2) that the defendants used that trade secret in “498 in the event of a breach of an agreement, a confidential relationship or an obligation or as a result of the discovery by improper means.” North Atlantic, 188 F.3d to 43-44. Without proof of the written contract or the terms of the contract, there is only minimal evidence that allows a jury to conclude that Kanda was involved in a valid contract. However, since a reasonable jury was able to conclude from Maimon`s statement that Kanda signed a confidentiality agreement, although the form of the contract containing such a provision is unknown, the jury should be allowed to assess the credibility of the witnesses and assess the evidence of that element. However, since LinkCo did not provide sufficient evidence on two of the remaining elements of the illegal intervention of the contract, the appeal must nevertheless be dismissed. Where a party argues that a written agreement has been reached and has been violated, the onus is on that party to provide the contract or to provide sufficient evidence on the basis of which the essential terms of that written agreement can be established. See Sims v.
Blanchris, 648 F. Supp. 480, 484-85 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (on the ground that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for breach of the burden of proof in the absence of a contract, the evidence on this was inconclusive, essential concepts were questionable and no satisfactory evidence of an allegation of an infringement was presented). First, the court minutes have no evidence of Fujitsus` direct knowledge of the employment contract between LinkCo and Kanda in which he allegedly interfered. See Ito Testimony, Tr. at 188-89 (recognizing that prior to Kanda`s hiring, Fujitsu did not ask if Kanda had an employment contract with LinkCo).  LinkCo relies on evidence that Takeshi Ito, a Fujitsu official, considered confidentiality agreements to be “obvious” and a “common practice” in employment. See pl. mem. 4-5 (citing Ito`s testimony, tr. at 681-82). LinkCo argues that, in all employment contracts, there is an implied contractual obligation not to disclose trade secrets and that, therefore, Fujitsu is presumed to be aware of both contracts.
See pl. mem. four. Assuming fujitsu was aware of this implied obligation, which is highly unlikely, fujitsu had no real knowledge of the disputed contracts, as required by law. See Sovereign Bus. Forms, 2000 WL 1772599, at 9 (applicant`s objection that the defendant should have known of the existence of a non-competition agreement as being harsh and speculative); AA Tube Testing Co. v. Sohne, 20 A.D.2d 639, 246 N.S.S.2d 247, 248 (2d Dep`t 1964) (The prosecution that the accused should have “known” that there was a contract for insufficient affirmation of “real knowledge”). Without evidence of actual knowledge of Kanda`s employment contract or inciting evidence, the Court is obliged to judge legally linkCo`s unlawful interference with contractual rights.
 Second, there is no evidence in the minutes, which a reasonable jury may have concluded that Fujitsu had pushed Kanda to terminate his contract with LinkCo.