Trade Secrets San. Francisco 2025

The Stakes Have Never Been Higher
With the Continuing Explosion of Cases, the Increasing Importance of AI, the Challenges of Cybersecurity

FACULTY

From the Judiciary and the Government:

Hon. Laurel Beeler, United States Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco

Hon. S. Raj Chatterjee, Judge, Alameda County Superior Court, Oakland, CA

Hon Rita F. Lin, United States District Judge, Northern District of California, San Francisco

Helen L. Gilbert, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Chief, National Security and Cyber Section, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of California, San Francisco

Alexandra Bryant, Acting Supervisory Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, San Francisco Division, San Francisco

OTHER FACULTY:

David S. Almeling, Partner, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco

Adam R. Alper, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, San Francisco

Yar R. Chaikovsky, Partner, White & Case LLP, Silicon Valley

Michael W. De Vries, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Los Angeles

Jeff Homrig, Partner, Co-Head, IP, Technology & Science Litigation Practice, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Dallas

Bethany W. Kristovich, Partner, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Los Angeles

Kenneth A. Kuwayti, Partner, Morrison & Foerster, Palo Alto, CA

Jennifer Martin, Senior Privacy & Cybersecurity Counsel, Postman, San Francisco

Victoria F. Maroulis, Partner, Co-Chair, Intellectual Property Litigation Practice, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco

Daniel M. McGavock, Vice President, Practice Leader of Intellectual Property, Charles River Associates, Chicago

Rachael E. Meny, Partner, Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco

Dan Roffman, Vice President, Forensic Services, Charles River Associates, Washington, D.C.

Chris Rucinski, Vice President, Forensic Services, Charles River Associates, Boston

Bridget Smith, Assistant General Counsel, Head of Intellectual, Relativity Space, Long Beach

Laura Vartain, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, San Francisco

Michelle Woodhouse, Associate General Counsel, Litigation, Meta, Menlo Park, CA

Patricia Young, Partner, Global Vice Chair, Intellectual Property Practice, Latham & Watkins LLP, Menlo Park, CA

The landscape of trade secret litigation is constantly evolving, with significant cases and trends emerging that impact businesses across various industries. Here are some key trade secret cases and trends to watch in 2025:

Key Trends to Monitor

• Scrutiny of Large Damage Awards: While juries continue to award significant damages in trade secret cases, courts are increasingly scrutinizing these awards, particularly regarding the causal nexus between the proven misappropriation and the claimed damages. Several large awards have been overturned or reduced on appeal, emphasizing the need for plaintiffs to meticulously prove causation.

• Extraterritorial Reach of the DTSA: The Seventh Circuit's ruling in Motorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp., affirming that the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) allows for damages on misappropriation-related sales outside the United States (provided there was an "act in furtherance" of the misappropriation within the U.S.), is a critical development. Other circuits may follow suit, potentially making the U.S. an even more attractive forum for international trade secret disputes and increasing the scope of recoverable damages.

• Impact of AI on Trade Secrets: The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents a dual challenge. AI can create new forms of trade secrets (e.g., algorithms, systems), raising questions about ownership and protection. Conversely, AI also poses a threat, as it may facilitate reverse-engineering of trade secrets that were previously difficult or impossible for humans to decipher. The law is expected to evolve to address these complex issues.

• Noncompete Enforceability Limitations: The evolving landscape of noncompete agreements, including the potential for a federal ban by the FTC or increased state-level restrictions, is making trade secret protection even more vital. As noncompetes become less enforceable, companies will increasingly rely on robust trade secret safeguards to protect their confidential information and prevent former employees from unfairly competing.

• Plaintiffs' Success Rates in Trials: Recent analyses indicate that plaintiffs prevail in a high percentage of federal trade secret cases that go to trial (around 84% since 2017). This trend may encourage more filings and potentially higher settlement amounts before verdict.

• Importance of Identifying Trade Secrets with Specificity: As seen in Double Eagle Alloys, courts are demanding greater precision in defining alleged trade secrets. General or vague descriptions are unlikely to succeed. Companies need to implement clear policies and procedures for identifying, documenting, and safeguarding their trade secrets.

• Focus on Reasonable Safeguards: The effectiveness of measures taken to protect trade secrets remains a critical element of any claim. Cases continue to emphasize the importance of confidentiality agreements, limited access, and other reasonable safeguards to preserve the secrecy of information.

Key Cases to Watch

Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow Co., Ltd. (D. Mass. Apr. 24, 2025): This case involved a substantial jury award of $452 million for willful and malicious misappropriation of trade secrets related to a wearable insulin pump. While the district court reduced the unjust enrichment and exemplary damages, it granted a worldwide, permanent injunction, highlighting the power of injunctive relief in trade secret cases and the extraterritorial reach of the DTSA. This case demonstrates the potential for significant damages and broad injunctive relief, even if monetary awards are later adjusted.
Double Eagle Alloys, Inc. v. Hooper (10th Cir. 2025 WL 1162473): The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants due to the plaintiff's failure to adequately identify its alleged trade secrets. This case serves as a crucial reminder that plaintiffs must specifically identify their trade secrets with particularity, distinguishing them from publicly available information or general business know-how. Vague or overly broad identifications can doom a claim.
Propel Fuels Inc. v. Phillips 66 Co. (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 16, 2024): A California jury awarded Propel Fuels $604.9 million in a trade secret suit, and Propel is seeking an additional $1.2 billion in exemplary damages for "willful and malicious" misappropriation. This case underscores the potential for massive damages awards, particularly when willful and malicious conduct is found.
Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. TriZetto Grp., Inc. (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2025, and Oct. 23, 2024): This long-running case saw a jury award TriZetto Group nearly $70 million in compensatory damages for trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement. Previously, a jury had awarded over $850 million, demonstrating the complexity and high stakes of such disputes, and the continued scrutiny of large damages awards.
I-Mab Biopharma v. Inhibrx, Inc. (D. Del. Nov. 1, 2024): This case involves allegations that a co-founder misused confidential information regarding cancer treatment antibodies obtained as an expert witness in a prior arbitration. It highlights the risks associated with individuals having access to sensitive information in professional roles and the potential for complex disputes arising from such situations.
Walmart Case (Arkansas Jury, reported June 3, 2025): An Arkansas jury found Walmart liable for trade secret misappropriation and awarded $222 million to Zest Labs, a provider of technology solutions for tracking food freshness. This is another example of a substantial jury award in a trade secret case, indicating continued success for plaintiffs at trial.
Pegasystems, Inc. v. Appian Corp.: The $2.036 billion jury award in favor of Appian Software against Pegasystems was vacated by the Virginia Court of Appeals in 2024, but the Virginia Supreme Court has granted review. This case remains a significant one to watch as it could set important precedents regarding large damages awards and appellate review in trade secret cases.

These cases and trends highlight the dynamic nature of trade secret law and the ongoing efforts to balance protection of proprietary information with fostering competition and employee mobility. Businesses should stay informed about these developments to strengthen their trade secret protection strategies and navigate potential litigation effectively.

Program Highlights/Topics for Discussion
9:00 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. PDT

Panel 1: Observations From the Judiciary and Government

Judicial Perspectives on Trade Secrets Law and Practice
Extraterritorial Application of the DTSA
International Trade Commission (ITC) Developments
Criminal Prosecution of Trade Secrets Theft

Panel 2: The In-House Perspective - Protection, Prevention and Investigations

Cybersecurity Risks
Trade Secret Protection

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

Update on regulatory and legislative developments
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
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
- Key Takeaways from Recent Cases
  - What lessons can we learn from recent high profile trade secret cases like Syntel v. TriZetto; Motorola Solutions v. Hytera Communications; Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow Co. Ltd.; Pegasystems Inc. v. Appian Corp.; Propel Fuels Inc. v. Phillips 66 Co.; Taxinet Corp v. Santiago Leon; Computer Sciences Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd; Double Eagle Alloys, Inc. v. Hooper; I-Mab Biopharma v. Inhibrx, Inc; Zest Labs, Inc. et al. v. Wal-Mart Inc.
Damages Strategies
- While there have been several mammoth damages awards in recent years, those awards have been subjected to intense scrutiny on appeal.
- What is a 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.
- 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 Co. 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.