Posts in Trade Secrets

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday affirmed a district court decision finding that Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc. (APT) had failed to sufficiently identify its trade secrets under either the state or federal trade secrets statutes. Business analytics company APT sued MarketDial, Inc. and John Stoddard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah for patent infringement and trade-secret misappropriation and later added Morgan Davis as a defendant and added breach-of-contract and tort claims.

Sharing information about an invention is not an option. With patents, disclosure is a requirement which benefits the inventor, other inventors and society. When and how an invention is shared makes a huge difference. Disclosing information and sharing the right to practice it are not the same. The Patent Bay, a new patent platform from a Swedish company that believes some patent owners are hoarders, is looking to change how patents are shared and used.

This year saw a world in which many employees had forms of Generative AI (GenAI) at their fingertips, either in the workplace or on their personal devices, and a world in which organizations continued to face unprecedented levels of cyber risk as they continued their digital transformation journeys. While data breach litigation is not new and tales of company confidential information being copied and pasted into open GenAI tools have haunted employers for what feels like years, trade secret issues arising from data breaches and GenAI use were not really trending issues in the courts in 2025. Indeed, perhaps surprisingly, equitable and contractual duties of confidence lay at the heart of the few cases involving trade secrets that were considered by the UK courts in 2025, with directors being under the microscope and the courts again grappling with issues around the identification and particularization of the confidential information at issue.

Companies face substantial liability for trade secret misappropriation. Jury awards this year have reached staggering amounts…. On November 21, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Computer Sciences Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., __ 5th Cir. __, 2025 WL 3249148 (5th Cir. 2025), affirmed $56 million in compensatory damages, $112 million in punitive damages, a permanent injunction, and a 10-year monitorship against TCS… The Computer Sciences decision provides critical guidance on trade secret handling under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), clarifies what constitutes “willful and malicious” misappropriation, and establishes that exemplary damages may be awarded even where the plaintiff suffers no harm beyond lost profits.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential ruling in Coda Development S.R.O. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. affirming the Northern District of Ohio’s post-verdict grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to Goodyear on state trade secret and federal inventorship claims raised by Coda. The Federal Circuit ruled that Coda’s trade secret claims were either not defined with sufficient particularity or were publicly disclosed in patent applications filed by Coda, leading the appellate court to dismiss the appellant’s correction of inventorship claims as well.

The most contested element in establishing a prima facie Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) trade secret misappropriation claim is whether the owner undertook “reasonable efforts” to maintain secrecy. Defendants routinely cite a lack of or poorly implemented security measures as a defense. On November 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Samuel Sherbrooke Corporate Ltd. v. Mayer offered guidance on what constitutes such measures at the pleading stage, reversing the district court’s dismissal on the ground that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable measures to protect the trade secrets at issue.

Practitioners in the high-stakes world of the International Trade Commission (ITC) are familiar with the formidable power of a Section 337 remedial order. The threat of a cease-and-desist order, backed by civil penalties of up to $100,000 a day or twice the value of imported goods, is a powerful deterrent. For years, the process for enforcing these penalties has been a settled feature of ITC practice. But a recent Supreme Court decision, Jarkesy v. SEC, has introduced a new constitutional question that ITC litigators might want to watch out for.

Not every trade secret case involves a company that acquires culturally significant digital and physical assets to create interactive, community-driven experiences across the United States, a “tech-bro” who was sentenced to seven years in prison for securities fraud, a hip-hop group famous for hits like C.R.E.A.M., the most expensive musical work ever sold, and novel legal issues.

When faced with an employee who allegedly accesses a work computer to misappropriate trade secrets, many employers have turned to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) as potential causes of action against the former employee. However, the Third Circuit’s recent decision in NRA Group, LLC v. Durenleau, 2025 WL 2449054 (3d Cir. Aug. 16, 2025), has set further limits on the application of both statutes in this common scenario, holding that violating an employer’s computer-use policy does not constitute a violation of the CFAA and that passwords are not considered trade secrets because they lack independent economic value.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday issued a precedential decision in Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., Inc., affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding for a new trial involving patent, trademark, and trade dress infringement claims related to “hookless” shower curtains. The opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Chen, with Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judge Clevenger joining, held that while the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York properly denied Kartri Sales Co., Inc.’s and Marquis Mills, International, Inc.’s venue transfer motion and unclean hands defense, it erred in several of its infringement findings and damages awards.

Late last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that the agency was acceding to decisions by U.S. regional circuit courts vacating the agency’s Biden Administration-era rule banning noncompete clauses from U.S. employment contracts and preventing their enforcement. While some lawmakers have decried the decision to end this rule, the FTC also issued a request for information (RFI) as the Trump Administration seeks to develop a case-by-case enforcement approach for cracking down on noncompete abuses.

Trade secret litigation presents a fundamental paradox at the pleading stage: on the one hand, a plaintiff must identify their allegedly misappropriated trade secrets with sufficient specificity to survive a motion to dismiss, without providing an overly detailed disclosure in the public complaint that could effectively destroy the trade secret’s protected status, undermining the very foundation of the claim, while also describing the trade secrets sufficiently to provide defendants with adequate notice to mount a defense and ensure compliance with required pleading standards. The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) does not provide explicit identification guidance. At the state level, only California and Massachusetts have enacted statutory provisions addressing certain aspects of trade secret identification under their respective versions of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion on Tuesday reversing a district court’s decision to grant a DNA-sequencing-analysis company’s motion to strike nine of 11 trade secrets asserted against it by a competitor. The The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found the trade secret owner, Quintara Biosciences, Inc., had failed to identify the trade secrets with “reasonable particularity” under the California Uniform Trade Secret Act (CUTSA) Section 2019.210, and therefore granted Ruifeng Biztech, Inc.’s motion to strike them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). However, the Ninth Circuit panel said that, under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), “the fact question of ‘reasonable particularity’ should be resolved on summary judgment or at trial.”

On July 30, 2025, a California Superior Court in Propel Fuels, Inc. v. Phillips 66 Company, awarded Propel Fuels $195 million in exemplary damages for “abusive behavior” after the jury had awarded $605 million in damages for trade secret misappropriation. Beyond the staggering financial consequences, the case offers critical lessons for companies navigating the delicate process of corporate acquisitions, particularly those involving the exchange of confidential information.