Trade Secret Litigation Attorney

Trade secret litigation moves faster than most commercial disputes because the evidence can vanish and the competitive harm compounds while the case develops, so early timing and disciplined preservation often change what relief a court will grant. A trade secret litigation attorney evaluates what information qualifies, how it moved, and whether a federal court is likely to grant emergency relief on the record available. Keyhani LLC litigates misappropriation claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and state law, for both owners enforcing their rights and companies accused after a competitor hire.

Trade Secret Litigation Under the DTSA and State Law

A trade secret case is rarely governed by one statute. It usually combines a federal claim under the DTSA, a parallel state-law claim, employment facts, and a request for fast court intervention. The DTSA created a federal civil action for misappropriation when the trade secret relates to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.

The statutory definitions in 18 U.S.C. § 1839 control much of the analysis. Under § 1839(3), information qualifies as a trade secret only if the owner took reasonable measures to keep it secret and the information derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable through proper means. Under § 1839(5), misappropriation reaches improper acquisition, as well as disclosure or use of information the person knew was acquired by improper means or in breach of a duty.

State law still matters and often travels with the federal claim. Most states have adopted a version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, while New York continues to rely on common-law doctrine. The New York Court of Appeals applied the Restatement of Torts six-factor test in Ashland Management Inc. v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395 (1993), weighing how widely the information is known, the measures used to guard it, and the difficulty of duplicating it. Choosing which claims to plead, and in which forum, is an early strategic decision that shapes discovery, remedies, and settlement value.

What a Trade Secret Plaintiff Must Prove

A viable claim has three practical parts, and a defense usually attacks the same three points. First, the owner must identify the asserted trade secret with enough specificity to separate protected information from general skill, memory, or public knowledge — without disclosing the secret in a public filing. Second, the owner must show reasonable measures: access controls, confidentiality agreements, device policies, segregation, and enforcement. Third, the owner must tie the defendant to improper acquisition, use, or disclosure.

Specificity is where many cases are won or lost early. In Oakwood Laboratories LLC v. Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892 (3d Cir. 2021), the Third Circuit addressed how a complaint must identify the asserted information and the alleged use with enough detail to survive an early challenge. The decision is a reminder that a trade secret owner should describe the information and the misuse concretely, while a defendant should test vague categories, stale data, and claims that rest only on the fact that an employee once had access.

Emergency Relief: TROs and Preliminary Injunctions

Emergency relief is the stage where trade secret disputes are frequently decided. When delay would allow use, disclosure, or loss of secrecy that money damages cannot repair, a company may seek a TRO or preliminary injunction. This is a request for a judge to restrict conduct before final judgment, often on an expedited record, so the evidence and the proposed order must be precise.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, a TRO can issue without notice only on a clear showing of immediate and irreparable injury, and Rule 65(c) generally requires the movant to post security for costs and damages if a party is later found to have been wrongfully enjoined. The controlling standard from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), requires a showing of likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm, a balance of equities in the movant’s favor, and that relief serves the public interest. Irreparable harm must be shown as likely, not merely possible.

The DTSA also limits how far an injunction can reach. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A), an order may not prevent a person from entering an employment relationship, and any conditions on employment must rest on evidence of threatened misappropriation rather than on what the person happens to know. A separate ex parte civil seizure remedy under § 1836(b)(2) exists only in extraordinary circumstances and is not the ordinary first step in a departing-employee dispute.

Evidence Preservation and Spoliation Strategy

How a company preserves evidence often matters as much as what the former employee did. When litigation is reasonably anticipated, the owner should issue a litigation hold that reaches beyond one mailbox to the custodians, systems, and logs that may hold relevant material. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e), loss of electronically stored information that should have been preserved can lead to curative measures, or to severe sanctions where a party acted with intent to deprive another of its use.

Preservation should be disciplined rather than aggressive. The company should preserve its own systems and document the chain of custody, but it should not access personal accounts or personal devices without a lawful basis. Overbroad collection creates separate exposure and weakens credibility at the first hearing. A defendant that receives a demand letter has its own preservation duty and should screen the employee from disputed information.

Phase	What Counsel Directs	Why It Matters
On discovery of the problem	Disable active access, preserve mailbox and account logs, image relevant company devices, and suspend routine deletion.	Prevents further access and reduces spoliation risk before the facts are fully known.
Scoping the record	Map the specific information at issue and run a forensic triage of downloads, transfers, and repository activity.	Separates protectable information from general knowledge and ordinary work activity.
Choosing the remedy	Assess DTSA and state-law claims, injunctive relief, expedited discovery, or a negotiated preservation protocol.	Builds a defensible path for a demand, a TRO application, or a decision not to sue.

NDA and Confidentiality Disputes

Trade secret matters frequently arrive alongside a contract claim. Keyhani LLC litigates disputes over non-disclosure agreements, confidentiality provisions, and related obligations, both enforcing them for owners and defending companies accused of breach. A signed NDA can strengthen the reasonable-measures showing and support a parallel breach-of-contract claim, and its forum-selection, choice-of-law, and fee-shifting terms can shape where and how the dispute proceeds.

An agreement is not a substitute for proving a trade secret. Courts generally expect the owner to identify the asserted information with specificity, even where a broad confidentiality clause exists. For related work, our guide on trade secret theft by a former employee walks through the first response, the litigation hold, and how to weigh emergency relief without overreaching.

Trade Secret Matters We Handle

Both Sides: Enforcement and Defense

Trade secret disputes are not one-sided, and the same facts read differently depending on which chair you sit in. An owner works to protect secrecy and stop misuse without overclaiming. A defendant works to preserve evidence, challenge unsupported claims, and keep a trade secret case from becoming an unlawful restraint on ordinary employment or competition. Representing both sides sharpens how we prepare either one for the first injunction hearing.

Issue	Owner / Plaintiff	Accused Party / Defense
Trade secret identity	Define the asserted information with enough specificity to support relief without public disclosure.	Challenge vague categories, public or stale data, and general employee knowledge.
Reasonable measures	Show access controls, agreements, labeling, training, and enforcement history.	Test whether the owner actually protected the information before the dispute.
Misappropriation evidence	Tie downloads, transfers, or communications to actual or threatened use.	Preserve independent-development evidence and explain ordinary work activity.
Injunction scope	Request targeted return, non-use, and inspection relief tied to the evidence.	Oppose restraints that function as a non-compete without proof of threatened misuse.

Where We Litigate Trade Secret Cases

The DTSA created a federal civil action, but trade secret litigation is not exclusively federal — state-law claims under state UTSA analogs and New York common law can also be litigated in state court, so a matter often turns on early forum judgment. Keyhani LLC litigates in federal courts nationwide and serves U.S. and international clients, appearing with local counsel where a court requires it. The firm evaluates whether a matter belongs in federal court, whether state-law claims should travel with it, and whether emergency relief is realistic on the available record.

The firm’s regional focus includes the District of New Jersey, the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Northern Virginia, and Washington, DC — venues where departing-employee and competitor disputes are common but where the underlying claims are federal (i.e., DTSA), and the firm handles trade secret matters wherever the dispute and the evidence require.

Why Keyhani LLC

Keyhani LLC is a litigation-led intellectual property boutique that also handles IP consulting, licensing disputes, transactional work, and IP mediation and arbitration. In trade secret matters, the firm’s work centers on the decisions that actually move a case: what to preserve, what to plead, whether a TRO is justified, and how to frame relief without overreaching.

Founder Darius Keyhani has more than 20 years of intellectual property litigation experience and has served as lead counsel in 80+ federal cases, with federal appellate experience and admission to the U.S. Supreme Court bar. Frances Stephenson, a member of the firm admitted in New York, focuses on intellectual property litigation, including trade secret and confidentiality disputes. Together they handle enforcement and defense across the full arc of a trade secret case.

Trade Secret Litigation FAQ