Taking legal action to protect a trade secret is unlike other intellectual property litigation since what you’re trying to protect is a secret. Plaintiffs must navigate a fine line between pleading their complaint with enough specificity to put the Defendant on notice of what they allegedly misappropriated, but not too much to diminish the value of the secret. Several recent decisions indicate how to strike this balance.

An American Arbitration Association arbitrator recently awarded Black Knight, Inc. (BK) $155M stemming from Pennymac Loan Services, LLC’s (Pennymac) alleged use of its mortgage-loan servicing platform to develop its own competing product. Though the arbitrator did not find Pennymac liable for trade secret misappropriation, they found that the use of

On November 1, 2023, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California awarded damages to Skye Orthobiologics, LLC (“Skye”) and Human Regenerative Technologies, LLC (“HRT”) for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of duty of loyalty by Skye’s former employee (“Defendant”). While

On November 9, 2023, in Ho-Ho-Kus, Inc. v. Sucharski, No. 2:23-cv-01677, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey found that Ho-Ho-Kus, Inc. (“HHK”) failed to show a trade secret existed with adequate specificity to justify granting a TRO or a preliminary injunction, but nevertheless denied a motion to dismiss arguing that the company failed to sufficiently plead the existence of a trade secret. 

On December 1, 2023, in Global Discovery Biosciences Corp. v. Harrington, et al., No. 2022-1132, a Vice Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled on the balance of a motion to dismiss brought back in June 2023 by two former CEOs-Dr. Harrington and Mr. Nuñez (together, “Defendants”)-who were