Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets Damages Limited to Plaintiff’s Losses Under New York Law

by Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

When a defendant avoids the cost of developing its own technology by stealing proprietary information, can that defendant be required to re-pay the cost it saved as compensatory damages?  Not under New York trade secret or unfair competition law.  In E.J. Brooks Co. v. Cambridge Security Seals,[1] a divided New York Court of Appeals announced – over a lively dissent – that compensatory damages for misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition are limited to the plaintiff’s own losses, and may not include the development costs avoided by defendants.  The Court further held that an accompanying claim for unjust enrichment does not provide a basis to expand the recovery beyond the plaintiff’s own losses.

Background and Federal Jury Trial

E.J. Brooks Company, operating as TyndenBrooks, manufactures plastic security seals.   After several TyndenBrooks employees defected and took a confidential automated process for manufacturing seals with them to rival Cambridge Security Seals, TyndenBrooks sued Cambridge in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging common law misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.[2]  At trial, TyndenBrooks sought damages measured by the development costs Cambridge had avoided (i.e., “avoided costs”) as a result of its theft of the manufacturing process.  Cambridge was found liable on all three causes of action by a jury.  It was awarded $3.9 million in compensatory damages, split evenly between the three claims.  The jury declined to award punitive damages.[3]  

Questions Certified to the New York Court of Appeals

Cambridge appealed the damages award (including the district court’s assessment of prejudgment interest), arguing that damages based on avoided costs are not permitted under New York law.  The Second Circuit concluded that New York law was unsettled and that, particularly given the “careful policy judgments” implicated by the issues, certification to the New York Court of Appeals was appropriate.[4]

The Second Circuit certified two questions to the Court of Appeals: (1) “[w]hether, under New York law, a plaintiff asserting claims of misappropriation of a trade secret, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment can recover damages that are measured by the costs the defendant avoided due to its unlawful activity”; and (2) if so, whether prejudgment interest under New York CPLR § 5001(a) is mandatory when damages are based on avoided costs.[5]

New York Court of Appeals Decision

By a vote of 4-3, the Court of Appeals answered the first certified question “no” in an opinion by Judge Paul Feinman, joined by Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Stein and Garcia. 

The touchstone of the Court’s holding was that the “[t]he fundamental purpose of compensatory damages is to have the wrongdoer make the victim whole.”[6]  In the Court’s view, that principle could not support damages beyond the actual losses incurred by a plaintiff under any of the three causes of action.

Turning first to unfair competition, the Court pointed to several rulings from the Appellate Division for the principle that unfair competition “[d]amages must correspond to ‘the amount which the plaintiff would have made except for the defendant’s wrong . . . not the profits or revenues actually received or earned’ by the defendants.”[7]  Although courts “may award a defendant’s unjust gains as a proxy for compensatory damages,” the Court of Appeals emphasized that such a reference to defendant’s gains required “‘some approximate relation of correspondence, a causal relation not wholly unsubstantial and imaginary, between the gains of the aggressor and those diverted from his [or her] victim.’”[8]  Ultimately, “the measure of damages in a trade secret action must be designed, as nearly as possible, to restore the plaintiff to the position it would have been in but for the infringement.”[9]

With respect to trade secrets, the Court adopted the First Department’s ruling in Hertz Corp. v. Avis, Inc. for the proposition that “trade secrets damages may not be measured by a defendant’s increased profits, except to the extent that those profits are evidence of the plaintiff’s own losses.”[10]  The Court held that since trade secrets damages must be measured “by the losses incurred by the plaintiff,” avoided costs were not an appropriate measure because they are “tied to the defendant’s gains rather than the plaintiff’s losses.”[11]

Finally, the Court held that avoided costs were not an appropriate measure of unjust enrichment damages because they are not saved “‘at the plaintiff’s expense,’” as required to recover for unjust enrichment.[12]  The Court emphasized that unjust enrichment is not a catch-all tort to address residual unfairness, but a narrow quasi-contract cause of action that applies only when the circumstances create “an equitable obligation running from the defendant to the plaintiff” that the law will recognize “to assure a just and equitable result.”[13]  Since a defendant’s avoided costs are not taken or withheld from the plaintiff itself in the context of misappropriated trade secrets, the defendant’s ill-gotten savings are not “at the plaintiff’s expense” for the purposes of quasi-contract law. 

Having concluded that avoided costs were not cognizable damages under each of the three theories, the Court of Appeals answered “no” to the Second Circuit’s first certified question, and declined to address the second.

The Dissent

Judge Rowan Wilson wrote a lengthy dissent, joined by Judges Rivera and Fahey, voicing four fundamental disagreements with the majority opinion. 

First, the dissent sharply criticized the majority’s methodology in addressing certified questions.  The majority opinion, it argued, took a bottom-up approach to the question that both shirked the Court’s duty to issue a “broad pronouncement of law” and usurped the federal court’s jurisdiction over the underlying case.  The dissent also faulted the majority for declining to engage with the policy considerations of its ruling, an omission the dissent found troubling because the Second Circuit had described the issue of trade secrets damages as an “unresolved policy decision.”[14]

Second, the dissent questioned the majority’s interpretation of the existing New York law on each of the three damages issues.  With respect to both trade secrets and unfair competition, the dissent argued that the cases relied upon by the majority stood only for the narrow proposition that damages based on a lost profits theory cannot rest solely on evidence of the defendant’s gains.[15]  The dissent also framed a plaintiff’s “loss” in a trade secrets case more broadly than the majority, arguing that loss included not only lost profits, but also lost potential licenses, the loss in the value of the secret itself, and “perhaps most importantly, the lost incentive for others to expend their time and efforts on innovation.”[16]  Given this broader conception of “loss,” the dissent contended that the majority had reached the wrong outcome even under the majority’s own rule that damages must be limited to a plaintiff’s loss.  With respect to unjust enrichment, the dissent argued that the majority’s reasoning was not an answer to the certified question, but was a reversal of the jury verdict on liability, since the jury had been instructed that unjust enrichment entails an improper enrichment “at the plaintiff’s expense.”[17]

Third, the dissent raised the issue of whether the federal court’s consolidation of law and equity rendered the majority’s analysis incomplete.  Common-law unfair competition is an action in equity, the dissent noted, which contemplates recovery of the defendant’s profits.[18]

Lastly, the dissent expressed concern that the majority’s reasoning places New York out of step with the prevailing jurisprudence on unfair competition and trade secrets.  As the dissent noted, the Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition and “nearly all other jurisdictions” allow plaintiffs to recover either the plaintiff’s cost of development or the defendant’s avoided costs upon a finding of unfair competition.[19]  This prevailing approach is better, in the dissent’s view, because it takes into account the core purpose of trade secret law:  the encouragement of innovation. 


The ruling in E.J. Brooks places a major limit on compensatory damages for unfair competition and trade secrets in New York.  Those damages are capped at the amount of loss incurred by the plaintiff.  This ruling has particular force given the difficulty of establishing actual losses from the theft of intellectual property.  Although a variety of factors – including avoided costs – may still be considered in ascertaining the proper damage award, avoided costs can only serve as evidence of, rather than as substitutes for, damages in the unfair competition and trade secrets context.  And, as Judge Wilson noted in his dissent, the rule announced by the Court may open the door for entities found liable for misappropriation of trade secrets or unfair competition to nonetheless profit if they can make more efficient use of the stolen information than the rightful owners, so long as they do not trigger punitive damages.

[1] E.J. Brooks Co. v. Cambridge Security Seals, No. 26, 2018 BL 157167 (N.Y. May 3, 2018).

[2] Id. at *1.

[3] Id. at *2.

[4] E.J. Brooks Co. v. Cambridge Security Seals, 858 F.3d 744, 752 (2d Cir. 2017).

[5] E.J. Brooks Co. v. Cambridge Security Seals,  No. 26, 2018 BL 157167, at *3 (N.Y. May 3, 2018) (quoting E.J. Brooks Co. v. Cambridge Security Seals, 858 F.3d 744, 752 (2d Cir. 2017)).

[6] E.J. Brooks Co., 2018 BL 157167, at *3 (internal quotation marks omitted).

[7] Id. at *4 (quoting McRoberts Protective Agency, Inc. v. Lansdell Protective Agency, Inc., 61 A.D.2d 652, 655, 403 N.Y.S.2d 511 (1st Dep’t 1978).

[8] Id. at *5 (quoting Underhill v. Schenck, 238 N.Y. 7, 17, 143 N.E. 773 (1924)).

[9] Id. at *6.

[10] Id. at *7 (citing Hertz Corp. v. Avis, Inc., 106 A.D.2d 246, 485 N.Y.S.2d 51 (1st Dep’t 1985).

[11] Id. at *7-8.

[12] Id. at *8 (quoting Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 N.Y.3d 173, 182, 944 N.Y.2d 1104, 919 N.Y.S.2d 465 (2011)) (internal brackets omitted).

[13] Id. at *8-9 (internal quotations omitted).

[14] Id. at *10 (Wilson, J., dissenting) (quoting E.J. Brooks, 858 F.3d at 750).

[15] Id. at *16-17 (Wilson, J., dissenting).

[16] Id. at *12 (Wilson, J., dissenting).

[17] Id. at *19 (Wilson, J. dissenting).

[18] Id. at *18 (Wilson, J., dissenting) (quoting Winifred Warren, Inc. v. Turner’s Gowns, Ltd., 285 N.Y. 62, 67, 32 N.E.2d 793 (1941)).

[19] Id. at *21 (Wilson, J., dissenting).


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.

© Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler 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):

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.


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.