Speed is almost always of the essence for the victim of trade secret misappropriation. Many companies ground their business in proprietary information that, if made public, would make the exclusive product or service those companies provide a commodity good. The International Trade Commission provides a lightning fast mechanism to address trade secret misappropriation and stop foreign goods embodying misappropriated trade secrets from entering the United States, and thus it is no surprise that when trade secret misappropriation takes place abroad, companies turn to the ITC for relief. A recent decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin makes the ability of the ITC to address trade secret misappropriation even stronger by finding, for the first time, that ITC determinations may have preclusive effect in United States District Court.
A recent decision in the Northern District of Illinois gave life to the inevitable disclosure doctrine under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. Inevitable disclosure is a common law doctrine by which a court can prevent a former employee from working for a competitor of his or her former employer where doing so would require the employee to depend upon his or her former employer’s trade secret information. See, e.g., PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995). To date, some commentators have suggested that the inevitable disclosure doctrine is not available under the DTSA because of language in the statute indicating that any injunction granted under the statute to prevent trade secret misappropriation may not “prevent a person from entering into an employment relationship,” and that any conditions placed on employment must be based on “evidence of threatened misappropriation and not merely on the information the person knows.” The Northern District of Illinois’s decision in Molon Motor and Coil Corp. v. Nidec Motor Corp., No. 16 C 03545 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2017), however, suggests that the inevitable disclosure doctrine may continue to be useful for trade secret plaintiffs asserting claims under the DTSA.
On May 10, 2017, Amgen filed a complaint in the District of Delaware asserting that, under section 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(i) of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), Coherus infringed Amgen’s U.S. Patent No. 8,273,707 (the “’707 patent”) by filing an abbreviated Biologic License Application (“aBLA”) for a biosimilar version of Amgen’s Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) product. Amgen asserted that the biosimilar manufacturing process disclosed in the Coherus aBLA will infringe the ’707 patent’s claimed protein purification process.
A recent decision in the Western District of Kentucky highlights the importance of explaining in a complaint under the Defend Trade Secrets Act why the allegedly misappropriated information qualifies for trade secret protection. The decision is an important reminder that it is not enough to simply call something a “trade secret” in a complaint under the DTSA. Rather, a plaintiff must plausibly allege how the information qualifies as a trade secret. Where a plaintiff fails to do so, the complaint is susceptible to dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements (NDAs) are among the most common documents attorneys draft and review for clients. They are so common, in fact, that where a client needs to execute a large number of facially distinct but substantively similar NDAs, it may make sense for the client to draft and review these documents itself. To assist the client in doing so, we typically provide it with an informal and non-exhaustive list of considerations, of the kind recreated below, to bear in mind when thinking about each specific NDA.