The Rise of the Era of Trade Secret Litigation
Ching-Lee Fukuda, Aimee Fagan and Irene Yang, the co-leaders of the IP litigation practice at Sidley Austin, write that the current landscape for patent litigation likely makes trade secret enforcement an attractive avenue for companies looking to protect their intellectual property.
January 04, 2024 at 07:30 AM
9 minute read
Trade secret enforcement is a growing frontier for intellectual property litigation. While patent litigation has long been the incumbent, over the course of the past decade or so we have seen significant unpredictability for patentees in asserting patents, defending their validity, and maintaining large awards on appeal. Trade secrets present an avenue for companies looking to protect their intellectual property without these growing hurdles. Recent verdicts in the nine-to-10-figure range demonstrate the potential for blockbuster awards in cases of trade secret misappropriation including for claims brought under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). Indeed, a recent report indicates that 68% of all federal trade secret cases that went to trial in 2020 received verdicts in favor of the trade secret plaintiff.
According to the Lex Machina 2023 Trade Secret Litigation Report, while the number of federal trade secret claim filings has remained relatively constant since the enactment of the DTSA in 2016, 80% of trade secret cases filed in 2022 include a DTSA claim. This rise of DTSA claims is expected to continue. The combination of plaintiff-favorable outcomes and large damages awards makes trade secret litigation a potent option for intellectual property protection and enforcement. The expected increase of DTSA claims can also be attributed in part to the current patent litigation landscape, including varying application of the Section 101 Alice framework, the potential of a litigation stay pending invalidity challenges at the Patent and Trial Appeals Board (PTAB), increasing strength of other invalidity challenges such as enablement and obviousness-type double patenting, and high rates of vacatur or remand of large patent damage awards at the Federal Circuit.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllLitigators of the Week: A Trade Secret Win at the ITC for Viking Over Promising Potential Liver Drug
Litigators of the Week: A $604.9M Trade Secrets Verdict With a Big Assist From a Juror Question
Litigators of the Week: Wiping Out a Startup's $72M Verdict Against Boeing
Litigator of the Week: Reversing a $2B Trade Secret Verdict, the Largest in Va. History
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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