United States: Trade Secrets

The Federal Circuit reinstated a $82.3 million award against Ford for breaching a software licensing agreement with Versata, ruling that Versata can seek even greater damages for trade secret misappropriation...

This bulletin examines recent trade secret litigation developments from March and April 2026, including significant damages awards, appellate decisions, and injunctive relief cases. The analysis covers jury verdicts ranging from $175 million to $170 million, a Federal Circuit reversal of an $18.3 million award, and a temporary restraining order preventing threatened disclosure of proprietary information.

A federal court in New York's Eastern District has ruled on a franchisor's trade secret claims against a former franchisee who allegedly retained confidential operations materials after termination.

Federal district courts in the Sixth Circuit have spent years applying a heightened evidentiary burden to preliminary injunction motions in trade secret cases, requiring movants to prove every factor by clear...

Adding to case law addressing franchisor–franchisee disputes involving system departures and post-termination competition, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued its opinion...

As artificial intelligence (AI) technology advances, and companies invest hundreds of millions of dollars to stay ahead of the competition, the strategies for protecting the related IP have received increasing...

The First Circuit recently addressed a critical question in trade secret litigation: who actually owns a trade secret and therefore has the legal standing to sue for its misappropriation? This episode examines the court's analysis of ownership issues and the implications for companies seeking to protect their confidential information through legal action.

Trade secrets are among a company’s most valuable intellectual property assets. They can give a business a competitive edge, provided that they are properly safeguarded.

A federal district court in Georgia ruled that a professional liability insurer had no obligation to defend or indemnify an attorney accused of misappropriating trade secrets and participating in a conspiracy.