United States: The Defend Trade Secrets Act: Some Practical Considerations

Today President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA or the "Act"), which creates a new federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation effective immediately.

The DTSA establishes federal jurisdiction for claims brought under the Act, which will now provide trade secret plaintiffs with the option to sue in federal court and bring with it the potential for a more unified body of federal law.

Although trade secret theft has been a federal crime since 1996, civil claims for trade secret misappropriation were almost always governed by state law.1 As a result, although plaintiffs who could establish diversity or concurrent jurisdiction could file trade secret cases in federal court, other plaintiffs were limited to state court. Nearly every state has adopted some variant of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA). Its title notwithstanding, the UTSA suffered from a perceived lack of uniformity due to the many variations in the state statutes adopting it. Because the Act does not preempt state trade secret law claims, the option to proceed under state law, and in state court, will remain.

WHAT'S NEW

Employers Should Update Employment Agreements to Provide DTSA Notices

Only one provision of the DTSA requires immediate action: the Act includes a whistleblower clause that provides immunity for disclosure of trade secrets to government officials for the sole purpose of reporting violations of the law.2 Employers must give notice of that immunity "in any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information."3 Employers who do not do so cannot recover punitive damages or attorneys' fees that may otherwise be available under the Act.

Employers should consider addressing this clause in current policies regarding trade secret information (or establishing such policies if they do not exist) and reviewing existing employment, non-disclosure, proprietary information and invention assignment, and other agreements that govern the use of a trade secret or other confidential information to ensure compliance with the DTSA. For example, employers could insert a cross-reference to a compliant policy, or the following language into those agreements:

18 U.S.C. § 1833(b) states:

"An individual shall not be held criminally or civilly liable under any Federal or State trade secret law for the disclosure of a trade secret that—(A) is made—(i) in confidence to a Federal, State, or local government official, either directly or indirectly, or to an attorney; and (ii) solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law; or (B) is made in a complaint or other document filed in a lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made under seal."

Accordingly, the Parties to this Agreement have the right to disclose in confidence trade secrets to Federal, State, and local government officials, or to an attorney, for the sole purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law. The Parties also have the right to disclose trade secrets in a document filed in a lawsuit or other proceeding, but only if the filing is made under seal and protected from public disclosure. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to conflict with 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b) or create liability for disclosures of trade secrets that are expressly allowed by 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b).

International Trade Secrets Disputes and Foreign Competition

The DTSA imposes reporting requirements to address the internationalization of trade secret disputes. The Act requires the Attorney General to prepare biannual reports detailing, among other things, the scope of theft of American trade secrets occurring outside of the United States, the extent to which those thefts are sponsored by foreign governments, a breakdown of the trade secret protections in each of the United States' trading partners, and specific recommendations to the executive and legislative branches for reducing trade secret theft and protecting American companies. The first report is due in one year.

The reporting requirement may lead to further amendments to the Act designed to provide further protections to United States companies. The reports could also lead to pressure being exerted on certain trading partners and could eventually lead to efforts to harmonize trade secrets law among international trading partners.

Standing Requires Ownership

Unlike the trade secrets statutes in some states, the DTSA allows an "owner of a trade secret" to bring a civil action under the Act. The California statute, for example, does not have such a stringent requirement, and California courts have held that it does not require a plaintiff to be a current owner of a trade secret.4

New Disclosure Protections (for All Federal Suits)

The DTSA prohibits district courts from "authoriz[ing] or direct[ing] the disclosure of any information [a trade secret] owner asserts to be a trade secret unless the court allows the owner the opportunity to file a submission under seal that describes the interest of the owner in keeping the information confidential."5 This provision—which is not expressly limited to DTSA cases—may have broader applicability and could lead to more sealed filings and orders.

Ex Parte Seizure Orders

The DTSA adds an important remedy not found in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act: it provides for ex parte orders "providing for the seizure of property necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret."6 This has been one of the most publicized new provisions of the Act, simultaneously lauded and vilified, depending on your point of view.

In fact, this procedure is likely to be employed infrequently, because the prerequisites for the issuance of a seizure order order are lengthy and exacting. To issue such an order, a court must find all of the following: (i) another form of equitable relief would be inadequate because the party to be enjoined would evade, avoid, or otherwise not comply; (ii) immediate and irreparable injury will occur if such seizure is not ordered; (iii) the harm to the applicant outweighs the interests of the party to be enjoined and substantially outweighs potential harm to third parties; (iv) the applicant is likely to succeed on the merits; (v) the party to be enjoined has actual possession of the trade secret; (vi) the application describes the matter to be seized with reasonable particularity; (vii) the party to be enjoined would destroy, move, hide, or otherwise make such matter inaccessible to the court; and (viii) the applicant has not publicized the requested seizure.7 An ex parte seizure order must include those detailed findings of fact and law and a number of other requirements, such as instructions that provide for the narrowest seizure of property necessary, detailed guidance to law enforcement (including permissible hours of seizure and the directions about the amount of force authorized), and instructions on protecting the seized property from disclosure.8 The burden imposed on plaintiffs preparing these applications, and courts reviewing them, will be substantial.

The DTSA provides a number of special procedures for handling seized material, including the use of a special master to locate and isolate the seized material and the potential use of encryption to secure the seized material. The use of special masters could be an attractive option for overburdened courts faced with administering these procedures.

WHAT STAYED THE SAME (IN CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES)

No Preemption

The DTSA does not preempt states' trade secrets acts or any other state laws.9 Accordingly, state law causes of action should remain largely unchanged.

Similarity to Uniform Trade Secrets Act

The DTSA is modeled on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which is also the model for the trade secret statutes in California10 and other states. Therefore, the elements of a DTSA misappropriation claim are similar to the elements of state law trade secret claims.11 Given the many variations in UTSA-based statutes, however, there are significant differences that vary from state to state.

The DTSA provides the same remedies as the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act and most UTSA states, plus the ex parte seizure remedy.12 It also has the same three-year statute of limitations as California.13 Importantly, like the UTSA, the DTSA states that a continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim of misappropriation and thereby precludes arguments that each new act of misappropriation restarts the statute of limitations.

The Act Does Not Adopt the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine

Under the inevitable disclosure doctrine, "a plaintiff may prove a claim of trade secret misappropriation by demonstrating that [a] defendant's new employment will inevitably lead [the defendant] to rely on the plaintiff's trade secrets."14 The doctrine has been rejected in California and other states because it "'creates a de facto covenant not to compete' and 'runs[s] counter to the strong public policy in California favoring employee mobility.'"15

The inevitable disclosure doctrine was a topic of significant discussion in legislative hearings for the DTSA, and the DTSA is designed to strike a careful balance to ensure that the DSTA does not introduce the inevitable disclosure doctrine to states that have rejected it. The DTSA expressly forbids injunctions that "conflict with an applicable State law prohibiting restraints on the practice of a lawful profession, trade, or business"16 or limit employment based "merely on the information the person knows."17 The lack of an inevitable disclosure claim in the DTSA is consistent with the White House's recent report on Non-compete Agreements, which "address[es] the potentially high costs of unnecessary non-competes to workers and the economy."18

WHAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN

There are many issues that will be determined as jurisprudence under the DTSA develops. To what extent will federal courts apply the law of the state in which they are sitting? Will federal courts become the default venue for civil trade secret claims, or will plaintiffs prefer to proceed in state courts, which are sometimes perceived as a more plaintiff-familiar venues? We address a few specific issues below.

The Act's Impact on Section 2019.210 Is Uncertain

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 requires a trade secret plaintiff to identify its claimed trade secrets with "reasonable particularity" before commencing discovery.19 The DTSA has no such express requirement.

One court has noted that section 2019.210 gives defendants "strategic and tactical advantages . . . not only because plaintiffs must 'go first,' which allows defendants to tailor their defense to plaintiffs' disclosure, but also because there is often significant delay and cost" due to disputes about the adequacy of a Section 2019.210 disclosure.20 Before the DTSA, federal courts hearing California trade secrets act claims split on whether Section 2019.210 applies in federal court. Some courts have chosen to follow the procedure voluntarily, or have found that Section 2019.210 is substantive law that applies in federal court and that it is "generally consistent with Rule 26's requirements of early disclosure of evidence relevant to the claims at issue and the Court's authority to control the timing and sequence of discovery in the interests of justice."21 Other courts, however, have found that Section 2019.210 is a procedural requirement that does not apply in federal court.22

As the DTSA has no express equivalent to Section 2019.210, a plaintiff filing a DTSA claim can argue that it need not separately identify its claimed trade secrets with "reasonable particularity" beyond what might be required to properly plead its claims. The text of Section 2019.210 arguably supports this position, as it expressly limits the statute's reach to "trade secret [allegations] under the [California] Uniform Trade Secrets Act."23 Defendants can counter, however, that the statute was drafted before the DTSA existed (and the legislature intended the statute to apply to all trade secret claims). Defendants also can rely on opinions holding that "section 2019.210 is not 'cause of action' specific [but instead] refers to any 'action,' i.e. the entire lawsuit, 'alleging . . . misappropriation of a trade secret.'"24

The Act May Not Impact the Exclusive Nature of a Trade Secret Claim

The UTSA provides for preemption of other civil causes of action based upon the misappropriation of a trade secret. California's trade secrets act, for example, "provides the exclusive civil remedy for conduct falling within its terms, so as to supersede other civil remedies 'based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.'"25 Courts therefore routinely dismiss related tort claims26 such as business interference, conversion, and negligence that are based on the same factual allegations as a trade secrets claim.27 One federal court has recently held that the California trade secrets act preempts non-contract claims that "rely on the alleged misappropriation of Confidential Information" even if no trade secret claim is pled.28

Because the Act does not preempt state law claims, a plaintiff may argue that it may file a DTSA claim and also pursue other tort claims based on the same facts. Such tort claims based on state law are arguably superseded by the California trade secrets act's exclusivity even if no California trade secrets act claim is asserted, but it remains to be seen how the courts will resolve this issue.

CONCLUSION

The DTSA ushers in a new era in trade secret law by providing for a federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation, and bringing trade secret law in line with its federal IP cousins. The Act strikes a careful balance to preserve many of the important elements of state law. It remains to be seen how federal jurisprudence will develop and whether federal court will now become trade secret plaintiffs' new forum of choice.

Footnotes

1 There are a few notable exceptions. See, e.g., TianRui Grp. Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 661 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

2 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(1).

3 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)(A).

4 See Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 180 Cal. App. 4th 980, 986 (2009).

5 18 U.S.C. § 1835(b).

6 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(i).

7 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(ii).

8 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(B).

9 18 U.S.C. § 1836(f).

10 California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. (Cal. Civ. Code § 3426, et seq.).

11 Compare 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)-(6) with Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1.

12 Compare 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3) to Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.2-3426.4.

13 18 U.S.C. § 1836(d).

14 PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262, 1269 (7th Cir. 1995).

15 Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 101 Cal. App. 4th 1443, 1463 (2002) (quotation omitted) ("Lest there be any doubt about our holding, our rejection of the inevitable disclosure doctrine is complete.").

16 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)(II).

17 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)(I).

18 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/non-competes_report_final2.pdf.

19 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.210.

20 Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Super. Court, 178 Cal.App. 4th 1333, 1353 (2009).

21 See, e.g., Soc. Apps, LLC v. Zynga, Inc., No. 4:11-CV-04910 YGR, 2012 WL 2203063, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2012).

22 See, e.g., Funcat Leisure Craft, Inc. v. Johnson Outdoors, Inc., No. CIV. S-06-0533, 2007 WL 273949, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2007).

23 Section 2019.210 applies "[i]n any action alleging the misappropriation of a trade secret under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Title 5 (commencing with Section 3426) . . . of the [California] Civil Code)."

24 Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Super. Court, 132 Cal. App. 4th 826, 834 (2005) (holding that Section 2019.210 suspends discovery into all claims related to a trade secret claim).

25 See Silvaco Data Sys. v. Intel Corp., 184 Cal. App. 4th 210, 236 (2010)(quoting Cal Civ Code § 3426.7), as modified on denial of reh'g, No. H032895, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 771 (May 27, 2010) overruled in non-pertinent part, Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011).

26 The CUTSA, like the UTSA, expressly allows related contract claims. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.7; see also Angelica Textile Servs., Inc. v. Park, 220 Cal. App. 4th 495, 506 (2013), as modified on denial of reh'g, No. D062405, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 908 (Nov. 7, 2013).

27 See, e.g., Callaway Golf Co. v. Dunlop Slazenger Grp. Americas, Inc., 318 F. Supp. 2d 216, 220 (D. Del. 2004).

28 Total Recall Techs. v. Luckey, No. C 15-02281 WHA, 2016 WL 199796, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2016).

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.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
McLane Middleton, Professional Association
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
McLane Middleton, Professional Association
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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