Two of the most important issues in trade secret cases involve the timing of when the plaintiff is required to identify its alleged trade secrets and the degree of specificity with which they must be identified. However, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) fails to address either of these issues, and most state courts have not agreed on unform standards. In comparison, for example, under Section 2019.210 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff is required to identify its alleged trade secrets with reasonable particularity “to limit the permissible scope of discovery by distinguishing the trade secrets from matters of general knowledge in the trade or of special knowledge of those persons skilled in the trade.” Now the Ninth Circuit in InteliClear LLC v. ETC Global Holdings, Inc., 978 F. F. 3d. 653 (9th Cir. 2020) has held that the DTSA also includes the requirement that the plaintiff must identify, depending on the stage of the litigation, with sufficient particularity to provide the defendant with notice as to the identity of the trade secrets at issue.
Litigation
- Bristol Myers Says AstraZeneca’s Imjudo Infringes Yervoy Patent
- Federal Circuit Upholds Albright’s Ruling on Denial of Transfer for GM
- High Court Asks for SG Views on Apple’s Petition Challenging Federal Circuit Approach to IPR Estoppel
- Albright Gets OK from CAFC on Denial of Transfer for Amazon
- This Year is Poised to Be a Landmark One for Tattoo Copyright Litigation
Recent Posts
- This Week in Washington IP: IPWatchdog Event to Review the State of the PTAB; US Inventor Protests in D.C.; and the House Considers Supply Chain Challenges
- SCOTUS Sustains Blow to Patent Prosecution Practice in Denying Juno v. Kite Rehearing
- Opinion: Restoring The Road Less Traveled – American Invention at a Crossroad
- An Alternative to Claim Mirroring in Initial Patent Application Filing
- Bristol Myers Says AstraZeneca’s Imjudo Infringes Yervoy Patent