New Data on Trade Secrets Cases Can Point the Way for General Counsel
Claimants, primarily companies, won about 71 percent of trade secret cases, and a majority of the defendants are former employees, according to new research from legal analytics research company Lex Machina.
May 31, 2018 at 03:41 PM
3 minute read
Claimants, primarily companies, won about 71 percent of trade secrets cases, and a majority of the defendants are former employees, according to new research from legal analytics research company Lex Machina.
Owen Byrd, general counsel and “chief evangelist” at Menlo Park, California-based Lex Machina, said on Thursday the research can be vital to a general counsel's decision-making.
“As general counsel of a tech company,” Byrd said, “we have patents and trademarks, while our 'natural language processing' is protected through trade secrets. In tech, trade secrets are the coin of the realm.”
The GC said Lex Machina tackled trade secrets cases because “it was the number one new case type that our users requested. It clearly is important to companies.”
He said GCs can use the analytics to help set their strategy, execute their tactics and improve the likelihood of success in litigation.
For instance, he said the data can guide GCs on choosing to sue under state or federal law, “by looking at how cases were treated by different judges in different jurisdictions.” (Occasionally a company ends up suing in both, as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. did in a trade secrets case over stolen computer source code decided earlier this month.)
When choosing outside counsel, Byrd said, the analytics can show which law firms in a district have the most experience with such claims.
Analytics also can shed light on whether to seek a temporary restraining order, file for summary judgment or increase a demand for damages, he added.
The research data include over 9,600 cases involving trade secret litigation pending in federal court since 2009, including those filed under the U.S. Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.
Besides data-mining millions of court documents, Lex Machina said it interviewed senior litigators from top law firms and major corporations for feedback on particular analytic requirements and cases.
Among other trends, the research found:
• More than 1,350 cases with DTSA claims have been filed during the two years since it was enacted on May 11, 2016.
• Federal court in the Central District of California saw the most trade secret cases (7 percent), followed by the Southern District of New York (5 percent) and the District of Illinois (5 percent).
• Only a few federal judges, however, have heard cases under the DTSA. Only 11 of the 550-plus currently active Article III (life-tenured) district judges have evaluated DTSA claims on contested motions or presided over the issue at trial.
Byrd said another interesting fact emerged from the data: “We found a lot of overlap between trade secret cases and employment law cases,” he said. It makes sense, he explained, that if a company is in litigation with a former employee, it would use its employment lawyer on trade secret theft, rather than an intellectual property lawyer.
“The data reveals a real opportunity for outside IP-centric firms to compete for and win this business, which could benefit from being handled by IP lawyers,” he said.
Lex Machina is a unit of LexisNexis Group Inc., with which ALM LLC, the parent company of Corporate Counsel and Law.com, has a content licensing agreement.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 AllMore Real Estate Deals Could Be Swept Up Under Proposed New Regulations for CFIUS Reviews
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