United States: The Scope Of 'Inevitable Disclosure' In Trade Secrets

Originally published by Law360, November 4, 2013

Can an employer enjoin an employee from moving to a competitor by claiming that the confidential nature of his or her position will result in the "inevitable disclosure" of trade secrets to the competitor, without proof of any wrongdoing by the employee? The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently has answered by ruling that an employer cannot validly assert a claim seeking to enjoin its employee from moving to a competitor solely based upon the hypothesis that there would be "inevitable disclosure" of the former's trade secrets, without any proof of any wrongdoing or improper disclosure by the employee or the employee's breach of a noncompete agreement. Janus et Cie v. Andrew Kahnke, No. R-CIV-7201-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2013).

In so ruling, Judge William H. Pauley III limited the parameters of the so-called "inevitable disclosure" of trade secrets doctrine under New York law. In New York, the doctrine has been considered only in connection with motions for preliminary injunctions (temporary relief) to block a former employee's move to a competitor, where it is alleged that the former employee improperly disclosed trade secrets or committed some other wrongdoing.

After alleging the employee's wrongdoing, the plaintiff relies on the inevitable disclosure doctrine to show irreparable injury (a predicate for injunctive relief), claiming that because the employee's job responsibilities with the new employer are so similar to those s/he had at the former employer, it is inevitable that the employee will disclose and use the former employer's trade secrets in his/her new position.

New York has a strong public policy against restrictive covenants not to compete and thus firmly rejects the inevitable disclosure doctrine — except in the limited above-listed circumstance — because New York recognizes that application of the doctrine effectively results in the formation of a noncompete agreement where none was bargained for.

The key question in Janus et Cie v. Kahnke was whether an injunction or even a claim could lie if there was an allegation of "inevitable disclosure" but no allegation of any wrongdoing.

In Janus, a California corporation sued to prevent the defendant from working with what they claimed was a direct competitor in New York, Dedon Inc. As the inevitable disclosure doctrine has been rejected in California, the plaintiff sought application of New York law.

In its complaint, the plaintiff asserted inevitable disclosure as a naked, stand-alone cause of action, rather than attempting to use the doctrine to show irreparable harm in support of a motion for a preliminary injunction, where separate allegations of actual wrongdoing also were present.

As Judge Pauley noted:

Janus now brings this action for inevitable disclosure of trade secrets, seeking a permanent injunction barring [the employee] from disclosing any of Janus' trade secrets or confidential information and from working for [the alleged competitor] in any area where Janus and [the alleged competitor] are direct competitors. Janus does not allege that [the employee] breached the non-disclosure agreement. Nor does Janus assert any facts indicating that [the employee] actually misappropriated or disclosed any of Janus' trade secrets. Rather, Janus seeks an injunction based on the theory that [the employee's] position with [the alleged competitor] is so similar ... that he cannot possibly perform the functions of his position ... without using and/or disclosing confidential information and trade secrets belonging to Janus.

In sum, the Janus complaint sought relief without any allegation or proof that there was any actual misappropriation of trade secrets or breach of a noncompete agreement.

The defense counsel highlighted the fact that Janus' argument has never before been attempted under New York law and that it violates the public policy of this state. In essence, Janus sought to file a claim without any allegation whatsoever that the employee ever committed any wrong.

Janus further argued that even though it failed to allege any wrongdoing, and even though it did not negotiate for a noncompete contract, it "should be permitted to obtain [its alleged competitor's] confidential information in order to determine whether it can make a case to protect its own." Janus et Cie.

The court decisively rejected Janus' position, dismissed the complaint in its entirety and held that application of the inevitable disclosure doctrine under New York law is limited to "instances where there is evidence of actual misappropriation of trade secrets, or where plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of a non-compete agreement." Id.

"Discovery here," Judge Pauley found, "would be a fishing expedition through a competitor's files. ... This Court refuses to countenance the imposition of an unlimited, unbargained-for restrictive covenant on Mr. Kahnke based on threadbare allegations." Id.

New York Courts Will Not Apply the Inevitable Disclosure Theory Without Allegations of Wrongdoing or Breach of a Noncompete

The Janus et Cie decision is consistent with the holdings of prior New York courts that did not recognize an independent claim of inevitable disclosure of trade secrets.[1]

New York courts have only applied the theory on an ancillary issue — the right to preliminary injunctive relief — if and only if there are underlying allegations of breach of a noncompete agreement or actual misappropriation of trade secrets or other wrongdoing.[2]

Judge Pauley rightly refused to expand the reaches of the doctrine in the manner in which Janus et Cie urged:

Janus makes the extraordinary request that this Court be the first to recognize the inevitable disclosure of trade secrets as a stand-alone claim in a complaint bereft of any allegations that Kahnke misappropriated trade secrets or breached a non-compete agreement. In essence, Janus asks this Court to allow a lawsuit to proceed to discovery when the Complaint alleges no wrongdoing by Kahnke. But the end game is a permanent injunction that would greatly expand the reaches of a restricted doctrine heavily disfavored under New York law.

In Janus et Cie, a key factor was that Janus and the employee had never entered into a noncompete agreement. Where the parties simply execute a confidentiality agreement, application of the inevitable disclosure theory would permit "the parties' confidentiality agreement [to] be wielded as a restrictive covenant. ... This can be a powerful weapon in the hands of an employer; the risk of litigation alone may have a chilling effect on the employee. Such constraints should be the product of open negotiation."[3]

To permit the creation of an implied-in-fact noncompete agreement where the former employee has committed no wrong would have far-reaching implications across countless industries and employment relationships and would severely stifle an employee's freedom and ability to leave his or her employer. Under a theory of inevitable disclosure, one could use this harassing litigation tactic against just about every middle- and upper-level manager in every company in the country that has some form of confidential information.

Such a decision also would permit the employer to engage in a blatant and harassing fishing expedition in the hopes of finding some evidence to support a valid claim. E.g., Stoner v. Walsh, 772 F. Supp. 790, 807 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (holding that plaintiff cannot be permitted to conduct a fishing expedition to "conjure up a claim that does not exist").

This is an abuse of process. This is not what courts are supposed to be used for. It would violate public policy for a defendant to be forced to defend a lawsuit that does not contain a single valid claim that the defendant has committed a wrong or that the plaintiff has suffered any harm.

In fact, New York courts recognize that "the plaintiff's injury must be actual or imminent to ensure that the court avoids deciding a purely hypothetical case in which the projected harm may ultimately fail to occur." Baur v. Veneman, 352 F.3d 625, 632 (2d Cir. 2003). Courts rightly reject harassing attempts to pursue "fishing expeditions" into a defendant's files in an attempt to search for a valid claim. [4]

For good and sound public policy reasons, there is no valid claim to force someone to go to court without an allegation of wrongdoing. The doctrine of inevitable disclosure is not a substitute; it cannot take the place for the failure to allege wrongdoing.


Clearly, the law must balance between the protection against claims of actual trade secret misappropriation and permitting employers to harass former employees by litigating unsupported claims without alleging any wrongdoing. Courts will not and should not support actions that are little more than legal "fishing expeditions" trying to conjure up a claim that does not exist.

R. Mark Keenan, is a shareholder in Anderson Kill's New York office and chairman of the firm's financial institutions group, concentrates his practice in litigation, insurance recovery and securities law. Keenan's litigation practice encompasses insurance coverage, general commercial, international, accounting, securities and marine litigation.

Dennis Artese is a shareholder in the New York office of Anderson Kill. His practice concentrates on insurance recovery litigation, with an emphasis on first-party property losses, third-party liability claims and construction disputes. The defendant was represented by the authors.

[1] Marietta Corp. v. Fairhurst, 754 N.Y.S.2d 62, 65 (3d Dep't 2003) (The inevitable disclosure theory has "not yet [been] adopted by the state courts" of New York.); see also First Empire Securities, Inc. v. Miele, 2007 WL 2894245, at *5, 851 N.Y.S.2d 57 (Table) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Suffolk Cty. 2007).

[2] E.g., Marietta Corp., 754 N.Y.S.2d at 65-66 ("As no restrictive covenant was in existence here and our well entrenched state public policy considerations disfavor such agreements, the doctrine of inevitable disclosure is disfavored as well, '[a]bsent evidence of actual misappropriation by an employee.'" (quoting EarthWeb Inc. v. Schlack, 71 F. Supp. 2d 299, 310 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)); Boston Laser Inc. v. Qinxin Zu, No. 3:07-CV-0791T (TJM/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2007) ("[F]ederal courts also have exemplified a reluctance to use the doctrine to grant injunctive relief, and have applied the doctrine only where evidence of actual misappropriation of trade secrets exists."); Colonize.Com Inc. v. Perlow, No. 03-CV-466 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2003) ("New York courts have used the doctrine very sparingly to grant injunctive relief only in circumstances where other evidence of theft of trade secrets exists."); U.S. Re Companies Inc. v. Scheerer, 838 N.Y.S.2d 37, 40 (1st Dep't 2007) ("Absent concrete evidence that the employee has actually breached a confidentiality agreement, there is no basis to bind him 'to an implied in fact restrictive covenant' not to compete."); see also O Zon Inc. v. Charles, 272 F.Supp.2d 307, 312 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (finding "case or controversy" requirement was not met where plaintiff had not alleged actual infringement of trade dress).

[3] EarthWeb Inc. v. Schlack, 71 F. Supp. 2d at 310; see also U.S. Re Companies, 41 A.D.3d at 155, 838 N.Y.S.2d at 40 ("Absent concrete evidence that the employee has actually breached a confidentiality agreement, there is no basis to bind him to an implied in fact restrictive covenant not to compete.").

[4] See, e.g., Stoner v. Walsh, 772 F.Supp. at 807; Singer v. Bell, 585 F.Supp. 300, 304 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ("The discovery rules 'are not a hunting license to conjure up a claim that does not exist.'" (quoting Samuels v. Eleonara Beheer, B.V., 500 F.Supp. 1357, 1362 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)). Moreover, filing preemptive claims prior to acts of infringement may serve to weaken the owner's intellectual property rights. See Serve No Complaint Before Its Time: Owners of Intellectual Property Rights Should Be Patient In Filing Claims To Protect Their Holdings, Michael J. Lane and Daniel J. Healy, Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C. Commercial Litigation Advisor, Winter 2003/2004. In The O ZON, Inc. and Visual Graphics Systems, Inc. v. Bart Charles, 272 F. Supp.2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed claims that (1) sought to prevent possible, future trade dress infringement and (2) alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement. The plaintiffs claimed they had intellectual property rights to "restaurant and food designs, graphics, computer programs and the concepts and trademarks that comprise the Ozon brand" as well as in certain confidential information, defined in a confidentiality agreement. Plaintiffs claimed Charles infringed their intellectual property rights and sought: (1) a declaration that Charles had no right to use Plaintiffs' alleged intellectual property or confidential information; (2) injunctive relief; (3) a finding of infringement under the Lanham Act; and (4) a finding that Charles had breached the confidentiality agreement. The Court dismissed each of plaintiffs' claims, finding that the complaint alleged only potential, future acts that could not constitute present infringement or breach of contract. The Court's decision rested in part on the well-established legal principle that a declaratory judgment may issue only where an "actual case or controversy" exists between parties. If an owner prematurely files an infringement case, it may create bad precedent, reducing the strength of intellectual property in future disputes.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

About Anderson Kill

Anderson Kill practices law in the areas of Insurance Recovery, Commercial Litigation, Environmental Law, Estate, Trusts and Tax Services, Corporate and Securities, Antitrust, Banking and Lending, Bankruptcy and Restructuring, Real Estate and Construction, Foreign Investment Recovery, Public Law, Government Affairs, Employment and Labor Law, Captive Insurance, Intellectual Property, Corporate Tax, Hospitality, and Health Reform. Recognized nationwide by Chambers USA for Client Service and Commercial Awareness, and best-known for its work in insurance recovery, the firm represents policyholders only in insurance coverage disputes - with no ties to insurance companies and has no conflicts of interest. Clients include Fortune 1000 companies, small and medium-sized businesses, governmental entities, and nonprofits as well as personal estates. Based in New York City, the firm also has offices in Ventura, CA, Stamford, CT, Washington, DC, Newark, NJ, and Philadelphia, PA.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions