Trade Secrets New York 2026

By Invitation-Only

9th Annual

Trade Secrets, Non-Competes and Other

Competitive Restrictions—

The Latest Word!

Featuring Current and Former Federal and New York and Judges and

Perspectives from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI, the FTC

and Top Legal Experts from Firms and Companies

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

In-Person at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison

Concourse Conference Center

1285 Avenue of the Americas

New York City

9:00 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. ET

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER- Complimentary

Hot Topics for 2026

Mega Verdicts on Appeal: Appian and Others
Identifying “Particularity”; Split in the Circuits: Aftermath of Quintera
AI and Trade Secrets

FACULTY

From the Judiciary and the Government:

Meredith A. Arfa, Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of New York, New York

Hon. Sarah L. Cave, U.S. Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, New York

Hon. Katherine B. Forrest, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; Former U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, New York

Dina McLeod, Chief, Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit, United States Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, New York

Hon. Loretta A. Preska, United States District Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, New York

Hon. Charles E. Ramos, Former Senior Judge, Commercial Division, New York Supreme Court, Co-Founder, Ramos & Artal LLC, New York

Hon. Saliann Scarpulla. Justice, Appellate Division, First Department, New York Supreme Court, New York

OTHER FACULTY

Russell Beck, Partner, Beck Reed Riden LLP, Boston

Kimberly E. Carson, Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York

David Freskos, Principal, Forensic Services, Charles River Associates, Chicago

Steven M. Kayman, Member, Rottenberg Lipman Rich, P.C., New York (Co-Moderator)

Steven Klocinski, Senior Vice President and Assistant General Counsel for Intellectual Property, Mastercard, Purchase, NY

April Lindauer, General Counsel, Carta, New York

Daniel S. Lurie, SI Global Deputy General Counsel & EVP, Sompo International, Purchase, NY

Daniel M. McGavock, Vice President, Practice Leader of Intellectual Property, Charles River Associates, Chicago
S. Preston Ricardo, Shareholder, Vedder, New York

Pietro J. Signoracci, Counsel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York

Ryan D. Stottmann, Partner, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE

Sarah Tishler, Partner, Beck Reed Riden LLP, Boston

Liza M. Velazquez, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York (Co-Moderator)

Baldo Vinti, Partner, Head IP Litigation, Proskauer, New York
Mary T. Weber, Labor and Employment Counsel, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY

In The Spotlight: Non-Competes, Forfeiture for Competition Provisions

and Legislative Activity

The FTC has abandoned its efforts to implement a broad ban on non-competes, but continues to regulate aggressive use of non-competes through enforcement actions. Some state legislatures have stepped in, with Wyoming banning most non-competes while Florida and Kansas enacted enforcement-friendly legislation. Delaware courts, meanwhile, have expanded their willingness to enforce certain forfeiture-for-competition provisions, at least in the context of voluntary resignations, while continuing their trend of refusing to enforce overly broad non-competes or non-solicits in the employment, partnership, and even sale-of-business contexts. Courts in various jurisdictions have taken different approaches with respect to whether employee non-solicits should be held to the same standards as non-competes—and on the question of what constitutes solicitation in the first place. With new California laws in place purporting to invalidate non-competes from all jurisdictions, a few recent decisions shed light on how non-California courts will analyze a noncompete if an employee moves to California in an attempt to evade enforcement. Our distinguished faculty will address all these topics.

In the Age of Artificial Intelligence,

Trade Secrets Protection Is More Important Than Ever

Artificial intelligence is rapidly shaping the landscape of trade secret protection and litigation. As companies integrate AI into their operations, proprietary data and outputs are being generated that may qualify as trade secrets—but are increasingly difficult to secure. AI tools can inadvertently expose confidential information, raising new questions about reasonable security measures and employee access controls. At the same time, AI is transforming trade secret disputes themselves: advanced analytics can help detect anomalous data transfers, trace information flows and uncover patterns indicative of misappropriation. Courts will confront novel evidentiary issues, including whether AI-generated insights are admissible and how to assess damages when stolen data accelerates an adversary’s product development. As AI capabilities grow, companies must rethink traditional risk frameworks and adapt their trade secret strategies to an era of unprecedented data creation, mobility and vulnerability.

Navigating the Wild World of Trade Secret Damages

Soaring jury verdicts and creative damages theories are facing increased judicial scrutiny on causation. Our panel of seasoned litigators and experts will discuss strategies for maximizing recovery and minimizing exposure in trade secret litigation. They will address the latest theories and nuances associated with all remedies, including lost profits, unjust enrichment, reasonable royalties, punitive damages and injunctions. Drawing on recent case decisions, our panel will provide practical tips on adequately alleging the existence of valuable trade secrets, proving causation, avoiding double recovery, “avoided cost” theories, apportionment, and aligning trade secret definition with damages theories. Key takeaways from recent verdicts and court decisions will be discussed, including Quintara v. Ruifeng, Appian v. Pegasystems; Insulet v. EOFlow; Syntel v. TriZetto; Motorola v. Hytera; Propel Fuels v. Phillips 66; Ryan v. FTC and Properties of the Villages v. FTC.

Program Highlights/Topics for Discussion

9:00 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. ET

Panel 1: Observations From the Judiciary and Government

Judicial Perspectives on Trade Secrets Law and Practice
- Identification of the claimed trade secrets – specificity and timing
- Trends in trade secrets cases (including the interplay with non-competes and forum/ choice of law battles)
- TROs and preliminary injunctions
- How often do trade secret cases go all the way to trial?
- Advice to litigation counsel; successful trial strategies
Extraterritorial Application of the DTSA
International Trade Commission (ITC) Developments
Criminal Prosecution of Trade Secrets Theft
- Government priorities
- Recent investigations and prosecutions
- Geopolitical challenges, including national security and state actors
- Cybercrime prosecutions, ransomware, new forms of cyber intrusions, business email compromise

Panel 2: The In-House Perspective on Trade Secrets in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Trade Secret Protection in the AI Era
- What kinds of information does your firm (or do your clients) consider a trade secret or confidential and how has AI impacted that analysis?
- What are companies doing to educate employees on the appropriate use (and risks) of AI and its impact on the protection of trade secrets and confidential information?
- What enhanced measures are companies taking to protect their trade secrets given the ever-increasing power and availability of AI tools?
- How can AI facilitate or help detect misappropriation?
Cybersecurity risks; tools to detect internal and external threats, confidentiality and reputational concerns
What to do when there’s been a theft or one is suspected?
Avoiding being accused of misappropriation

Panel 3: Non-Competes and Other Restrictive Covenants: New Challenges

Update on regulatory and legislative developments –FTC, Wyoming, Florida, Kansas, California
What kinds of non-competes and other post-employment restrictions are best practices and for what categories of employees? In what types of agreements should they be included?
Particular Hot Issues
- Managing risks of on-boarding employees
- Managing risks of departing employees
- Use of arbitration provisions
- Changing best practices given legislative activity, press attention, etc
- Customer non-solicit and no-hire provisions
- Employee non-solicit provisions
- Forfeiture for competition agreements and other “golden handcuffs”
- Trends on narrowing or “blue penciling” overbroad non-competes
- Garden leave provisions, separation agreements, and/or paid and right to buy non-competes as alternatives to unpaid non-competes
Recent case law developments concerning restrictive covenants

Panel 4: Trade Secrets in the Courtroom: Civil Litigation and Damages

Civil Litigation: Planning and Strategy
- Litigation Best Practices
  - Discovery, including evidentiary and causation complexities raised by AI-related trade secrets cases
  - Trial
- Key Takeaways from Recent Cases
  - What lessons can we learn from recent high profile trade secret cases like Quintara v. Ruifeng, Syntel v. TriZetto; Motorola Solutions v. Hytera Communications; Insulet. v. EOFlow; Appian v. Pegasystems.; Propel Fuels v. Phillips 66; Taxinet v. Santiago Leon; Computer Sciences v. Tata Consultancy Services
Damages Strategies
- We’ve seen several mammoth damages awards in recent years, but those awards have been subjected to intense scrutiny on appeal.
- What is your case really worth? What types of damages are recoverable?
- What are some of the unique challenges (and opportunities) in litigating trade secret damages claims under federal and state law? For example, the DTSA potentially allows for damages on misappropriation-related sales outside the U.S. and both the DTSA and UTSA allow for exemplary damages and fee shifting in certain circumstances. Certain state laws may require greater showings for trade secrets at the outset of the litigation, may not apply extraterritorially, and may preempt other claims, while permitting misappropriation claims to be pursued in state court.
- Causation considerations?
- Apportionment issues?
- Why are some awards being reduced on appeal, while others have been affirmed?
- What lessons can be learned about how to successfully prosecute/defend against damages claims from recent trade secret cases? (e.g., BladeRoom v. Facebook, E.J. Brooks v. Cambridge Sec. Seals)

Organized by:

Sandpiper Partners is an educational and consulting firm run by industry advisor, Lynn Glasser, who for more than 20 years has created important subject matter IP and Data Protection educational conferences and briefings, white papers and surveys for law firms and law departments.

Lynn and Stephen Glasser founded The Computer Lawyer, The Internet Lawyer, The Privacy Law Report and other information law resources as well as organized over 1000 conferences in IP, litigation, corporate law, securities law, and finance.

SP is also known as the leading provider of “Business of Law” education for lawyer leaders and senior business executives. www.sandpiperpartners.com

About the Premier Sponsor:

Charles River Associates is a leading global consulting firm that provides economic and financial analysis in litigation matters; delivers independent accounting and other forensic services; guides businesses through critical strategy and operational issues to become more profitable; and advises governments and regulatory agencies on the economic impact of policies and regulations. CRA has served major law firms, corporations, and governments around the world for more than fifty years, and we advise 83 of the Fortune 100 companies and 94 of the top 100 law firms. CRA provides a wide range of services to assist companies and law firms in protecting, enforcing and litigating trade secrets through experts and consultants in its labor & employment, forensics investigations, and intellectual property practices.

Questions? E-mail: Ginarivera@sandpiperpartners.com or Phone: 973.278.8800

CLE/CPE credit has been applied for.