United States: Emerging Issues In The Defend Trade Secrets Acts Second Year

One year after its enactment, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) continues to be one of the most significant and closely followed developments in trade secret law. The statute provides for a federal civil cause of action for trade secret theft, protections for whistleblowers, and new remedies (e.g., ex parte seizure of property), that were not previously available under state trade secret laws. The less than 70 reported DTSA cases to date provide an early glimpse into how courts may interpret the statute going forward and what early concerns about the statute may have been exaggerated.

Overstated Ex Parte Seizure Concerns

The ex parte seizure provision of the DTSA was one of the most controversial provisions of the statute during its drafting. The provision allows a trade secret holder to request, without notice to the alleged wrongdoer, that a district judge order federal law enforcement officials to seize property to prevent the propagation or dissemination of trade secrets. Opponents of the DTSA argued that the ex parte seizure provision would open the door to abuse by purported "trade secret litigation trolls" and increase litigation costs. The cases to date involving the seizure provision suggest that those early concerns may not materialize.

To curtail potential abuse, the DTSA requires stringent proof of the necessity and propriety of a civil seizure. For example, the DTSA prohibits copying seized property and requires that ex parte orders provide specific instructions for federal marshals performing the seizure, such as when the seizure can take place and whether force may be used to access locked areas. Moreover, a party seeking an ex parte order must be able to establish that other equitable remedies, such as a preliminary injunction, are inadequate.

The DTSA cases to date involving ex parte seizure requests reflect that courts are treating the remedy as intended—only in extraordinary circumstances. For example, a federal district court in the Eastern District of Michigan denied an ex parte seizure request because the court was not "persuaded that there has been a showing that the defendants would not comply with an order [] issued by way of an injunction under Rule 65." See, Dazzle Software II, LLC v. Kinney, No. 2:16-cv-12191-MFL-MLM (E.D. Mich. 2016). Other courts have applied similar reasoning in denying such requests. See, e.g., OOO Brunswick Rail Mgt. v. Sultanov, No. 5:17-cv-00017-EJD, 2017 WL 67119 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2017) (finding seizure under the DTSA unnecessary and instead ordering the defendant to preserve and deliver the electronic devices at issue).

Courts have also denied ex parte seizure requests where the plaintiff fails to substantiate its claims that ex parte seizure is needed to avoid the destruction of evidence. See, Balearia Caribbean Ltd. Corp. v. Calvo, No. 1:16-cv-23300-KMV (S.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2016) ("a plaintiff may not rely on bare assertions that the defendant, if given notice, would destroy relevant evidence").

Nonetheless, a few courts have ordered the ex parte seizure of property in DTSA cases. For example, the court in Mission Capital Advisors, LLC v. Romaka, No. 1:16-cv-05878-LLS (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2016) ordered the U.S. Marshall to seize the defendant's computer at his residence and then copy and delete the plaintiff's trade secret files at issue. Notably, the court issued its seizure order only after the defendant had purportedly ignored the court's initial TRO (which did not order the seizure of property) and order to show cause.

Other courts that have ordered the seizure of property in DTSA cases, however, have relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 (i.e., Injunctions and Restraining Orders) to authorize the seizure instead of the DTSA. See, e.g., Earthbound Corporation v. MiTek USA, Inc., C16-1150 RSM, 2016 WL 4418013, at 11 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 19, 2016) (granting a TRO requiring defendants to turn over to a neutral third-party expert all flash drives, SD cards, cell phones, and other external devices for forensic imaging); Panera, LLC v. Nettles, 4:16cv1181-JAR, 2016 WL 4124114, at 2-4 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 3, 2016) (granting a TRO requiring defendant to turn over his personal laptop and any other materials that may have housed plaintiff's materials for review and inspection). See also, Magnesita Refractories Co. v. Mishra, 2:16-cv-524, 2017 WL 365619, 2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2017) ("[Earthbound] and [Panera] had no problem relying on a Rule 65 temporary restraining order, rather than the DTSA, to accomplish the seizure.").

We expect the federal district courts to continue the trend in awarding ex parte seizure orders only in extraordinary, emergency, and substantiated circumstances.

Determining the Timeliness Of DTSA Claims

A rising development with the DTSA concerns its application to misappropriation that occurs both before and after the statute's May 11, 2016, effective date. The decision in Adams Arms, LLC v. Unified Weapons Sys., No. 16-cv-01503, 2016 WL 5391394 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 27, 2016) best illustrates this issue.

The plaintiff in Adams Arms alleged that the defendant mislead it in 2014 about defendant's intent to enter into a commercial relationship in order to induce the plaintiff to disclose trade secrets. The plaintiff further alleged that that defendant wrongfully disclosed and used the plaintiff's trade secrets on and after May 16, 2016, to enter into and exclude plaintiff from a purchasing contract with a third party.

The defendant in Adams Arms moved to dismiss the plaintiff's DTSA claim on the ground that the alleged misappropriation occurred before the enactment of the statute. The defendant explained that the DTSA has a three year statute of limitations and contains language that provides: "[f]or purposes of this subsection, a continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim of misappropriation." 18 U.S.C. 1836(d). In other words, the defendant argued that any alleged acts of continuing misappropriation should be measured at the time of the initial misappropriation, which in this case occurred before the DTSA's enactment.

The court rejected the defendant's argument. The court highlighted: "Section 2(e) specifies that [the] DTSA applies to 'any misappropriation ... for which any act occurs' after the effective date." Adams Arms, 2016 WL 5391394, at 6. Thus, the court found that plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a claim for relief based on the unlawful disclosure of trade secrets after the DTSA's effective date. Notably, the court limited plaintiff's DTSA claim to a disclosure theory as the Complaint's allegations and inferences reflected that any unlawful acquisition of trade secrets occurred well before the DTSA's effective date.

Other courts have adopted Adams Arms' reasoning and allowed plaintiffs to proceed with DTSA claims, at least partially, when the plaintiffs can sufficiently alleged that any wrongful misappropriation occurred after the data of the enactment of the DTSA. See, e.g., Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd v. Trizetto Group, Inc., Case No. 15-CV-211 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2016) ("as Defendants allege that Syntel continues to use its Intellectual Property to directly compete with Trizetto, the wrongful act continues to occur after the date of the enactment of DTSA"). But see, Avago Techs. United States Inc. v. NanoPrecision Products, No. 16-cv-03737, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13484 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017) (dismissing DTSA claim because alleged trade secrets were disclosed before the DTSA came into effect); (dismissing DTSA claim because "plaintiff makes no specific allegations that defendant used the alleged trade secrets after the DTSA's May 11, 2016, enactment").

Accordingly, DTSA claimants should ensure they sufficiently allege acts of misappropriation occurring after the DTSA's enactment date to increase the likelihood of surviving early pleading challenges.

Federal Courts Turning to State Courts for Guidance

Another emerging issue with the DTSA is whether it is fostering its underlying goals of uniformity in trade secret law. In enacting the DTSA, Congress sought to create a uniform standard for trade secret misappropriation, harmonize the differences in trade secret law under the UTSA, and provide uniform discovery.

Because the DTSA does not preempt state laws, trade secret plaintiffs have the option to plead claims under both federal and state laws. Federal district courts that are tasked with analyzing such claims simultaneously are finding similarities between the federal and state statutes, such as the definitions of trade secrets, improper use, or misappropriation. With an often abundance of state decisions addressing these similarities under their respective form of the UTSA, federal courts have turned to these state court decisions for guidance on interpreting the DTSA. See, e.g., Kuryakyn Holdings, LLC v. Ciro, LLC, No. 15-cv-703-jdp, 2017 WL 1026025, at 5 (W.D. Wisc. Mar. 15, 2017) ("the court's analysis will use Wisconsin's UTSA, but the analysis would apply as well to the DTSA."); Henry Schein v. Cook, No. 16-cv-03166-JST, 2016 WL 3418537 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2016) (applying California law in its DTSA analysis).

To the extent federal courts continue to look at their respective state courts' decisions for guidance in interpreting the DTSA, the DTSA may ultimately duplicate and amplify the already existing patchwork of differences in state trade secret laws.

Whistleblower Immunity Remains Largely Untested

One of the unique provisions of the DTSA is that it provides protection to "whistleblowers who disclose trade secrets to law enforcement in confidence for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law," and the "confidential disclosure of a trade secret in a lawsuit, including an anti-retaliation proceeding." One of the early concerns with this whistleblower immunity provision is that employees who have wrongfully misappropriated trade secrets and other confidential information may use it as an after-the-fact defense. For example, an employee accused of trade secret misappropriation may later attempt to disclose the trade secret information to an attorney or government official solely to invoke the DTSA's whistleblower protections and not for true whistleblowing.

After one year, the whistleblower immunity provisions remain largely untested. Only one published decision has addressed this immunity provision, which the court characterized as an affirmative defense and declined to rule on the merits of the defense—at least at the pleading stage—before discovery and the presentation of evidence. See, Unum Group v. Loftus, No. 4:16-CV-40154-TSH, 2016 WL 7115967 (D. Mass. Dec. 6, 2016).

Employers should also be mindful that the DTSA places an affirmative duty on them to provide employees notice of the whistleblower immunity provision in "any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information." Employers that fail to comply with this disclosure requirement are precluded from recovering attorneys' fees or exemplary damages under the DTSA.

We expect the whistleblower immunity provision to be a closely followed topic in the DTSA's second year.

Conclusion

The most significant takeaway after a year of the DTSA is that it provides trade secret holders with a new option in pursuing their claims. Trade secret holders have an additional mechanism to get their case into federal court and newly available remedies, but also an affirmative obligation to notify employees of the whistleblower immunity provision. Nonetheless, it is yet to be seen whether federal courts will become the overwhelmingly favorite forum for trade secret litigation.

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.

Authors
Daniel Joshua Salinas
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
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