The Defend Trade Secrets Act: Five Key Lessons

by Pierce Atwood LLP
Contact

Pierce Atwood LLP

  1. Courts will refuse to grant trade secret protection under the Defend Trade Secret Act (DTSA) when an employer has not taken certain basic precautions to create and maintain the secrecy of the subject information.
  2. With increasing employee mobility, employers will likely face the threat of a key, former employee entering the market with crucial trade secret information in their memory.
  3. For the purposes of stating a claim under the DTSA, a plaintiff must be able to point to specific, concrete, confidential information.
  4. Plaintiffs may be able to petition a court to order the seizure of property without the defendant receiving prior notice (an ex parte seizure).
  5. To assert a claim under the DTSA, the employee needs to have committed a misappropriation, improper disclosure or use after the enactment of the DTSA.

Trade secrets misappropriation cases often involve an employer whose former employee acquired confidential information and then used it without permission, for example, by leaking the trade secrets to a new employer or using the information to open a competing business. The DTSA provides federal legal recourse to the wronged employer. However, as the first DTSA cases are litigated, a number of key lessons can be gleaned from decisions arising from these matters.

1. Employers Bear the Initial Burden
While the underlying congressional intent of the DTSA is to better protect trade secrets, courts have been clear that trade secret protection arises from the trade secret owner’s vigilance in keeping what they claim to be a secret, secret. Courts will not grant trade secret protection where basic precautions to maintain secrecy have not been taken.
 
For example, a number of decisions under the DTSA emphasize the importance of a strong non-disclosure agreement (NDA).  A federal court in New York denied an injunction under the DTSA concluding that the owner of the information did not take “reasonable measures to protect the trade secrets.”[1]  In that case, the employer had explained the company’s confidentiality policy to its employee, installed a password-protected internal computer system and had taken certain cybersecurity precaution to protect against third-party computer interlopers. However, the court still deemed the information inadequately protected because the employee failed to sign an NDA, and the employer failed to terminate or limit the employee’s access in response to this failure.
 
It is clear that the NDA is the cornerstone of any successful trade secret protection strategy. NDAs must be kept current and responsive to changes in business needs and technology over time. This means the NDA should clearly explain that the employee will see, and possibly create, trade secret information. Further, the NDA should specify that this information, whether created by the employee, co-worker, superior, subordinate, or vendor, is the property of the employer. Of course, an employee’s refusal or failure to sign an NDA must be met with decisive action to wall off the employee from the confidential information.
 
2. Accept the Inevitable . . . But Know When to Act
The DTSA strikes a balance between protecting trade secrets and respecting the trend toward increasingly uninhibited employee movement. As it remains impossible to ask an employee to leave behind with their business cards, the knowledge they have gained during their employment, employers will likely face the threat of a key, former employee entering the market with crucial trade secret information in their memory (if not in their briefcase). Although the general skills and knowledge acquired during the course of employment are not often trade secrets, key employees by their very nature are increasingly exposed to proprietary, confidential information.
 
Under the DTSA, an employer cannot stop an employee from taking a new job simply because the employee has been exposed to, and may retain memory of, confidential information. The DTSA, as well as courts in Massachusetts and New York, reject the idea that employees will “inevitably disclose” confidential information simply because they are going to work for a competitor. The question then becomes: at what point will a court intervene?
 
In bringing a DTSA claim for trade secret misappropriation, employers must be able to point to a clear and present risk of harm. To avoid a court concluding that the employer’s fears are mere suspicion or conjecture, the employer is typically required to ground that fear in one or two common scenarios. The first is where the employee has acquired the information by impermissible means such as emailing it to a personal account or downloading it to private cloud storage. Predictably, the second is where an employee or former employee has already disclosed confidential information to a new employer or used it to form a competing business. Both of these criteria share an important trait: they would violate any competent NDA and information management scheme. An employer that can point to a clear violation of company policy will be in a better position to argue that fear of improper disclosure is justified. 
 
3. Know Your Information and Be Prepared to Explain its Importance
After it’s established that confidential information is at risk, the employer must be able to clearly identify the information implicated. For the purposes of stating a claim under the DTSA, a plaintiff must be able to point to specific, concrete, confidential information (such as detailed client lists, product designs, bidding or trading strategies, prototype software, etc.). Interestingly, a federal court recently dismissed a DTSA claim because it only pointed to general classes of protected information while failing to specify the actual information subject to misappropriation.[2]  For employers seeking an injunction against a former employee, this is particularly important. Courts have been clear that such a plaintiff must be able to show that it will suffer irreparable injury if the confidential information at issue were leaked or destroyed. Therefore, the employer will find it difficult to demonstrate risk of irreparable injury without a clear picture of the information at issue and its value to the employer.
 
These requirements indicate the importance of a clear and functional information management scheme. While the specifics of these procedures will vary depending on the organization’s size and the industry in which it operates, the procedure should speak to creation, ownership, identification, storage, retrieval, and destruction of company information. If properly followed, a solid information management policy will place an employer in a stronger litigating position if the need arises - being able to quickly identify and communicate the significance of material that has been inappropriately accessed or misappropriated.
 
4. An Ex Parte Seizure is Available . . . but it's the Last Resort
As a potential avenue for preliminary relief, plaintiffs may be able to petition a court to order the seizure of property without the defendant receiving prior notice (an “ex parte” seizure). This provision is available only in extraordinary circumstances to prevent the propagation or dissemination of a trade secret.
 
While this provision looks attractive, some courts have narrowed it to apply only when typical seizure methods have failed (commonly a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction).  Courts may also use the ex parte provision when there is a clear danger that evidence will be destroyed.[3] However, in circumstances where an employee has retained confidential information, but has not given any indication that the information will be destroyed or immediately disseminated, courts are likely to deny an ex parte motion.  
 
5. The DTSA will Offer the Most Help Moving Forward, Not Back
The DTSA has become an attractive option for potential plaintiffs. However, the DTSA is still a relatively new law that gives rise to the question: Is the DTSA retroactive?
The law itself states that it applies to an act of misappropriation that occurs on or after the date of the enactment. Courts have determined that the DTSA will clearly apply to acquisition and dissemination of confidential information after May 11, 2016. However, it also appears as though the DTSA can be applied to cases where an employee has acquired the information prior to enactment, but used (misappropriated) it after enactment. At least one court has ruled that where one party “continues to use [the other party’s] Intellectual Property to directly compete, the wrongful act continues to occur after the date of the enactment of DTSA.”[4]
 
Therefore, when evaluating a potential DTSA claim, the employer must determine whether the employee committed an act proscribed by the DTSA after its enactment, including:
• If the employee took and disseminated confidential information after enactment, the DTSA will provide a cause of action.
• If the employee took the information prior to enactment but used it or leaked it after enactment, the DTSA will provide a cause of action. 
• If the employee took and leaked the information prior to enactment, but someone is continuing to use the information to compete, the DTSA may provide a cause of action. 
 
6. Conclusion
The DTSA is a valuable tool for employers.  Indeed, it is clear that the DTSA provides employers with an effective avenue into federal court for trade secret disputes. However, employers must be aware of what the DTSA does not do. It does not relieve the employer’s burden to defend its information, manage its information, or articulate the importance of its information. While the DTSA is an effective tool, courts will first look to the steps the plaintiff took to avoid the necessity of using it at all. 
 
 

[1] Art and Cook, Inc. v. Abraham Haber, No. 17-CV-1634-LDH-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2017); 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(A)-(B).
[2] Segredahl Corp. v. Ferruzza et al., No 17-cv-3015, 2018 WL 828061 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 2018).
[3] Dazzle Software II v. Kinney, Case No. 2:16 CT 12191 (E.D. Mich. July 18, 2016).
[4] Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. Trizetto Group, Inc., No. 15CV211LGSRLE, 2016 WL 5338550, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2016). 

 

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pierce Atwood LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Pierce Atwood LLP
Contact
more
less

Pierce Atwood LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.