United States: The End Is Near: Trade Secret Cases In The New York State Court System

Last Updated: October 2 2018
Article by Daniel B. Goldman and Sam M. Koch

On May 3, 2018, in a 4-3 split decision, the New York Court of Appeals in E.J. Brooks Company v. Cambridge Security Seals (the E.J. Brooks case) held that plaintiffs cannot recover damages in trade secret cases based on development costs that defendants avoided by misappropriating trade secrets. 2018 WL 2048724, at *1 (N.Y. May 3, 2018). In doing so, the court determined that a plaintiff's damages must be specifically tied to the plaintiff's losses and not gains by the defendant. Id. at *6. This decision runs contrary to the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), which Congress passed in 2016 and which provides for federal jurisdiction. The DTSA provides a menu of damage calculation options including recovery of a defendant's unjust enrichment, which courts have interpreted to encompass the avoided cost methodology explicitly rejected by the Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs in trade secret cases that seek to measure damages by defendant's avoided costs, defendant's gains, or anything other than plaintiff's losses will now be incentivized to bypass the New York state court system for federal court. This may encompass a large swath of cases, as damages are notoriously difficult to calculate in trade secret actions.

The path to the New York Court of Appeals' decision began almost exactly three years before it was issued. On May 4, 2015, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rendered a unanimous verdict in favor of E.J. Brooks Company d/b/a Tydenbrooks (Tyden) on all three of its claims against the defendant Cambridge Security Seals (CSS)—misappropriation of trade secret, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment—for stealing Tyden's manufacturing processes. Id. Only one damages expert (Tyden's) testified at trial, and he calculated damages based on an avoided cost methodology, by determining the amount of money CSS avoided spending to get its manufacturing processes up and running as a result of its theft of Tyden's proprietary information. Id. at *1. In her charge to the jury, Judge Loretta Preska explained that the jury could calculate damages based on the "benefits derived by the defendant" and the "costs avoided by the defendant" by misappropriating Tydenbrooks' manufacturing process. E.J. Brooks Co. v. Cambridge Security Seals, 2015 WL 9704079, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2015). She further explained that the jury should "compare actual costs incurred by the defendant ... with costs it would have incurred to produce the same products without the use and knowledge of TydenBrooks' manufacturing process" and that the difference between these costs should be awarded as damages. Id. After trial, Judge Preska rejected CSS's challenge to the avoided cost methodology. CSS appealed Judge Preska's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. After affirming the district court as to liability, the Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question of whether, under New York law, a plaintiff can recover damages measured by "the costs the defendant avoided due to its unlawful activity" for claims of misappropriation of a trade secret, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition. E.J. Brooks Co. v. Cambridge Security Seals, 858 F.3d 744, 746 (2d Cir. 2017).

Writing for the majority in a 4-3 split decision, Judge Paul Feinman answered the question in the negative. E.J. Brooks case at *1. Acknowledging that the court had not yet "definitively stated" whether misappropriation of trade secret actions could be measured by an avoided cost methodology, the court determined that henceforth "damages in trade secret actions must be measured by the losses incurred by the plaintiff, and that damages may not be based on the infringer's avoided development costs." Id. at *5-6. In doing so, the court reasoned that the avoided cost methodology is "almost universally" considered a measure of a defendant's unjust gains, rather than plaintiff's losses, which is "not a permissible measure of damages." Id. at *6.

In a scathing dissent, Judge Rowan Wilson criticized the majority's approach for relying on inapposite case law to employ a "misguided bottoms-up attempt to decide this plaintiff's case rather than a top-down approach announcing principles of law." Id. at *8. In particular, Judge Wilson noted that trade secret cases require an especially "'flexible and imaginative approach to the problem of damages,'" and the majority's decision breaks from the court's rich history of flexible and imaginative jurisprudence. Id. at *9. Thus, he pointed out that the majority "forsakes New York's historic role as the vanguard," and, "[w]here [the New York Court of Appeals] should lead, [it] now refuse[s] even to follow." Id. at *8.

The decision in the E.J. Brooks case runs counter to the DTSA. The DTSA gives plaintiffs the ability to sue for monetary and equitable relief in federal court for the misappropriation of a trade secret. H.R. Rep. No. 114-529, at 196 (2016). It hews closely to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), a version of which has been adopted by 49 states. Indeed, on Aug. 10, 2018, when Massachusetts adopted the UTSA, New York became the only state that has not yet done so, although two bills to adopt a version of the statute are pending in the state legislature. Aaron Nicodemus, "Massachusetts Adopts Uniform Trade Secrets Law," Intellectual Property on Bloomberg Law (Aug. 16, 2018). In the House Judiciary Committee Report recommending the passage of the DTSA, the Committee indicated that subparagraph B of the DTSA, which governs how to award damages under the Act, was "drawn directly from S 3 of the UTSA." H.R. Rep. No. 114-529, at 205 (2016). "Specifically, it authorizes an award of damages for the actual loss and any unjust enrichment caused by the misappropriation of the trade secret ... ." H.R. Rep. No. 114-529, at 205 (2016). Indeed, the DTSA permits a plaintiff to seek damages calculated in one of three ways: (1) actual loss caused by the misappropriation; (2) "for any unjust enrichment caused by the misappropriation ... that is not addressed in computing damages for actual loss;" or (3) "in lieu of damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by the misappropriation measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty for the misappropriator's unauthorized disclosure or use of the trade secret." 18 U.S.C. §1836(b)(3).

Federal courts interpreting the DTSA have held that an avoided cost measure of damages is an appropriate way to calculate damages, as a measure of "unjust enrichment" under the Act's second damages calculation option. For example, in Steves and Sons, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently explained that a damages expert's avoided cost calculations were "appropriately considered as part of [the alleged misappropriator's] unjust enrichment damages" under the DTSA. 2018 WL 2172502, at *6 (E.D. Va. May 10, 2018). Similarly, in VIA Technologies v. ASUS Computer International, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California explained that "[w]here the plaintiff's loss does not correlate directly with the misappropriator's benefit ... [a] defendant's unjust enrichment might be calculated based upon cost savings or increased productivity resulting from use of the secret" in a trade secret misappropriation case brought under the DTSA and California's version of the UTSA. 2017 WL 3051048, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2017).

As many, including Judge Preska and Judge Wilson, have acknowledged, "computing damages in a trade secrets case is not cut and dry." Steves & Sons, 2018 WL 2172502, at *3. See also Mar Oil Co. v. Korpan, 973 F. Supp. 2d 775, 782 (N.D. Ohio 2013) (noting the difficulty of calculating trade secret damages); Avery Dennison v. Four Pillars Enter., 45 F. App'x 479, 485 (6th Cir. 2002) ("Damages in trade secret cases are difficult to calculate, because the offending company has mixed the profits and savings from increased quality and quantity of products, as well as savings from reduced [] costs of research and production, with its own natural profits."). In attempting to make it so by limiting recovery to plaintiff's losses, the New York Court of Appeals in E.J. Brooks Co. v. Cambridge Security Seals, may very well have driven trade secret litigation from New York courts to federal courts, as plaintiffs will prefer the flexible damages options provided by the DTSA. However, all hope for the New York state system may not be lost. The New York legislature could join the 49 other states that have adopted a version of the UTSA. Two draft bills to do so have been pending in the state legislature for over a year

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
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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