Previously, courts required trade secret plaintiffs to identify their trade secrets with particularity. That requirement applied before defendants had to respond to discovery. In practice, however, this rule created a familiar problem.
No matter how a plaintiff described its trade secrets, defendants often refused to respond. They argued that the identification was still not particular enough.
At the same time, courts typically declined to step in. They would not say whether the identification was sufficient. Nor would they explain what more was required. As a result, many trade secret cases stalled early. Some went nowhere at all.
That approach changes with Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc. The court held that the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) imposes no early “reasonable particularity” requirement. A plaintiff need not fully define its trade secrets at the outset. Instead, the adequacy of the identification is addressed later. It is usually resolved at summary judgment or trial.
This rule differs, however, from California law. Cases under California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) still follow a stricter path. CUTSA requires plaintiffs to identify alleged trade secrets with “reasonable particularity.” That obligation applies at the very start of litigation.
You might also be interested in our article: When Inventors Leave: A Hard Lesson in Trade Secret Law