A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Trade Secret Misappropriation

Secrets, Secrets Are Sooooo Fun!

Nathan R. Hoeschen, May 6, 2025
Standing Trade Secret Misappropriation

AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Earlier this week, Judge Burke unsealed an opinion on what appears to be an issue of first impression for the district.

Biohaven Therapeutics LTD v. Avilar Therapeutics, Inc., C.A. No. 23-328-JLH-CJB (D. Del. Apr. 10, 2025) (R&R) is a trade secret case where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants ... stole ... their trade ... secrets. The issue was that one of the plaintiffs, Biohaven, only had a non-exclusive license to the alleged trade secrets and thus defendant argued that they lacked standing to assert them.

Unlike in patent law, where dense treatises have been written about which types of license confer standing, the question of whether a bare non-exclusive license …

View

Can You Really Own A Secret?

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Oct. 1, 2024
DTSA Trade Secret Misappropriation

Short answer - yes, obviously.

Long answer - also yes, also obviously, but the timing is important.

AI-Generated, displayed with permission

The issue came to the fore in I-Mab Biopharma v. Inhibrx, Inc., C.A. No. 22-276-CJB (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2024) (Mem. Ord.). I-mAB is a DTSA action alleging the theft of about a dozen separate trade secrets. A few months back, the plaintiff went through a restructuring that resulted in several related entities now owning some or all of the trade secrets. The plaintiff then moved to add these entities as co-plaintiffs. Judge Burke denied the motion due to the potential for delay, given that the case was scheduled for trial int he near future.

Unsurprisingly …

View

Judge Williams Awards Fees After Plaintiff Maintains "Objectively Specious" Trade Secret Action

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 13, 2023
DTSA Trade Secret Misappropriation

Dollar Bills
Sharon McCutcheon, Unsplash

It's always good to know where the lines are. Today, Judge Williams awarded attorneys fees after the plaintiff in a Defend Trade Secrets Act action maintained an "objectively specious" argument after the close of fact discovery:

A claim is objectively specious where there is a complete lack of evidentiary proof from the party suing. . . . [T]he Court agrees with [defendant] Backer that [plaintiff] ZIM litigated this matter with knowledge that its claims were objectively specious. While Backer contends that ZIM knew that its claims were objectively baseless when it filed the Complaint, the Court finds that ZIM understood that its claims were objectively specious by the close of fact discovery on January 12, …
View

Summary Judgement Granted Because Trade Secret Plaintiff Alleged New Misappropriation Theory But Failed to Amend Complaint

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 14, 2022
Trade Secret Misappropriation SJ

Secret Plan
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

New Judge Williams is on a roll lately, releasing seven new opinions on Wednesday alone. Sadly we can't post about them all—I'd be doing nothing but writing blog posts. But I wanted to take the opportunity to point out an opinion from a rare (in D. Del., at least) trade secret action.

In Zoppas Industries de Mexico, S.A. v. Backer EHP Inc., C.A. No. 18-1693-GBW (D. Del.), the plaintiff accused the defendant of misappropriating its trade secret information about heating elements for appliances.

According to the complaint, plaintiff disclosed its literal secret plan—the "Zoppas Plan"—to appliance manufacturer Whirlpool. The complaint also alleges that the defendant here, Backer, then acquired that secret plan …

View

Archive