Examining the Extraterritoriality of the DTSA
Can a company's trade secrets misused abroad give recourse on the extraterritoriality of the Defend Trade Secrets Act? Yes, said the 7th Circuit in an important new case in which a claim under the DTSA was asserted.
October 24, 2024 at 11:49 AM
10 minute read
White Collar CrimeWhat You Need to Know
- In 2016, Congress enacted the Defend Trade Secrets Act as an amendment to the Economic Espionage Act, providing a federal cause of action for the misappropriation of trade secrets.
- While the DTSA clearly applies domestically, its extraterritorial application — whether the DTSA applied to conduct by foreign entities occurring outside the United States — remained unclear.
- That is, until the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in 'Motorola Solutions. v. Hytera Communications' earlier this year.
Can a company's trade secrets misused abroad give recourse on the extraterritoriality of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA)? Yes, said the 7th Circuit in an important new case in which a claim under the DTSA was asserted. This decision provides a roadmap for future cases involving international trade secret theft, finding liability for foreign misappropriation triggered by a domestic act.
In 2016, Congress enacted the DTSA as an amendment to the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) of 1996, providing a federal cause of action for the misappropriation of trade secrets. The DTSA was designed to unify and strengthen protections for trade secrets and provide a clearer framework for enforcement. While the DTSA clearly applies domestically, its extraterritorial application — whether the DTSA applied to conduct by foreign entities occurring outside the United States — remained unclear. That is, until the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd., earlier this year in July 2024.
|The Parties
Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Motorola) competes with Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd. (Hytera) in the market for two-way radio systems. Motorola spent many years and millions of dollars developing proprietary information and trade secrets that were embodied in a line of high-end digital mobile radio (DMR) products. Concurrently, Hytera faced issues developing a similar technology, losing part of its market share because it could not develop its own product to compete with Motorola.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllIndian Billionaire Gautam Adani Indicted in Brooklyn for Alleged Orchestration of $250 Million Bribery Plot
3 minute read'Politically Destabilizing'?: Trump Lawyers Say NY Criminal Case Must Be Dismissed
'A National Calamity': US Judge Says Archegos Founder Bill Hwang Should Get 18-Year Sentence for Fraud, Market Manipulation
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250