Trade Secret Litigation

HKW represents clients in trade secret litigation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and applicable state law, including matters involving alleged theft, improper disclosure, and competitive misuse of confidential technical and business information. We handle trade secret cases for both plaintiffs and defendants, including disputes that arise from employee departures, competitor hiring, vendor relationships, joint ventures, software and data access, and breakdowns in commercial relationships.

Lead Attorneys

For matters involving trade secret litigation, clients often begin with: Steven G. Hill and Douglas R. Kertscher.

What Trade Secret Cases Often Turn On

Trade secret claims are frequently decided by a small number of core questions:

• What is the trade secret? (specific identification and scope)
• Did the owner take reasonable measures to maintain secrecy?
• Does the information derive independent economic value from not being generally known?
• Was there misappropriation—acquisition, disclosure, or use by improper means?
• What is the appropriate remedy (injunction, damages, forensic relief, or case narrowing)?

Defining the alleged trade secrets with specificity is often the first decisive step. HKW has experience litigating early motions and discovery sequencing designed to require a plaintiff to identify each asserted trade secret precisely before broad merits discovery proceeds—an approach that can prevent moving targets and reduce unnecessary disclosure of sensitive business information.

Emergency Relief and Early Case Management

Many trade secret disputes are time-sensitive. When business risk requires urgent action, we litigate TRO and preliminary injunction issues with an evidence-first approach, focused on the facts courts actually consider, including:

• access pathways (systems, credentials, repositories, devices)
• departure and download timelines
• forensic indicators and system logs (where available)
• confidentiality obligations and the scope of authorized access
• competitive harm and remedy tailoring

We also handle the defensive side of emergency relief, challenging overbroad injunction requests, narrowing the asserted “secrets” to what is legitimately protectable, and ensuring that any restrictions are evidence-based and appropriately tailored.

Technology, Data, and the Georgia Computer Theft Act

Trade secret cases frequently involve electronic information: source code, technical documentation, customer lists, pricing models, and internal strategic plans. HKW litigates matters involving alleged misuse or transfer of data, including claims asserted under statutes addressing computer-based data transfer and unauthorized access, such as the Georgia Computer Theft Act, where applicable.

Our practice draws on HKW’s broader litigation experience in technology disputes and employment-related litigation, allowing us to address cases where the real dispute is not only what information exists, but how it was accessed, what restrictions applied, and what the law allows when employees change jobs.

Practical Guidance on “Reasonable Measures”

Trade secret protection is strengthened by documented, practical confidentiality measures. While “reasonable measures” are fact-specific, common protective steps include:

• limiting access to those with a business need to know
• using confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements
• implementing authentication controls and role-based permissions
• maintaining clear confidentiality labeling and internal policies
• documenting offboarding steps and device/data return processes

In litigation, these measures are not mere “best practices”; they often become central evidence on whether information qualifies for trade secret protection.

Remedies and Business Impact

Trade secret disputes often turn on remedy posture. Depending on the facts and governing standards, available remedies can include injunctive relief, damages for actual loss or unjust enrichment, reasonable royalty theories in appropriate circumstances, and fee-shifting frameworks tied to case posture and conduct. HKW approaches remedy strategy early, because remedy posture often drives settlement valuation and operational decision-making.

Why HKW for Trade Secret Litigation

• Early “trade secret identification” discipline: we press (or build) specific, defensible trade secret definitions early to prevent moving targets and control discovery scope.
• Emergency relief and fast records: TRO/PI strategy built on the evidence courts actually require—access pathways, timelines, logs, forensic indicators, and tailored harm proof.
• Technology + data fluency: experience with disputes involving electronic access, repositories, devices, and claims under statutes addressing computer-based misconduct where applicable.
• Confidentiality-first case management: protective orders, AEO protocols, secure review procedures, and sealing strategy designed to avoid litigating a case by publicly disclosing the secret.
• Remedy tailoring that fits the law: injunction scope, head-start theories, and damages methodologies tied to provable causation and a defensible time window.

Related IP Litigation Capabilities

HKW coordinates strategy across related IP proceedings and appeals. See also:

• Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Appeals
• Intellectual Property Litigation

Representative Trade Secret Matters

BuildingReports.com, Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc.
N.D. Ga., No. 1:17-cv-3140-SCJ
Represented plaintiff in Georgia Trade Secrets Act misappropriation case involving alleged automated extraction (“scraping”) of proprietary customer-list and account data from a secured database; focused on trade-secret protectability of compiled customer information and “improper means” theories in a data-access dispute.

Welding Services, Inc. v. Forman
N.D. Ga., No. 2:05-cv-96-WCO
Represented defendants (competitor and former employee) in trade secret and unfair-competition litigation; trade-secret issues included customer and supplier lists, bid-generation methodology (cost/profit/staffing calculations), and proprietary welding technology; obtained a dispositive win on the federal trademark claim that resulted in dismissal of the state-law claims, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Sumotext Corp. v. Zoove, Inc., et al.
N.D. Cal., No. 16-cv-01370-BLF
Represented defendant mBlox, Inc. in litigation involving sensitive business information; litigated trial-stage sealing and Attorneys’ Eyes Only confidentiality protections for proprietary commercial materials (including high-sensitivity business records and exhibits used at trial).

International Cultural Exchange Group v. Harifa, Inc., et al.
N.D. Cal., No. 5:14-cv-03014-PSG
Represented defendants in a multi-forum commercial dispute involving allegations of trade-secret misuse tied to a license-and-services agreement; addressed TRO/preliminary-injunction posture and confidentiality issues in removal filings; defeated a sanctions request premised on alleged disclosure of trade secrets in the removal record.

Strategic Questions for Trade Secret Litigation

What usually determines leverage early in a trade secret case?
Early leverage usually turns on three things: whether the alleged trade secrets are identified with real specificity, whether the plaintiff can show reasonable measures to maintain secrecy, and whether there is actual evidence of misappropriation rather than suspicion dressed up as a complaint. Timing is important too. If a plaintiff waits too long, emergency-relief arguments weaken; if a defendant delays its response, bad facts can harden quickly. In practice, the first phase of a trade secret case is often where the real shape of the dispute becomes clear.

Why is trade secret identification usually the first real battleground?
Because courts do not want a plaintiff litigating against a moving target. A party claiming theft of “confidential business information” in the abstract is usually in trouble. The plaintiff has to define the asserted trade secrets precisely enough for the court to decide what is actually at issue and for the defendant to respond fairly. On the defense side, forcing that discipline early can narrow the case dramatically and prevent discovery from turning into a one-way inspection of a competitor’s business.

What counts as “reasonable measures” to protect secrecy?
Courts look for evidence that the company treated the information like a secret in practice, not just in policy manuals. Access limits, confidentiality agreements, role-based permissions, secure systems, labeling, offboarding steps, and consistent treatment of sensitive material are all important. The critical point is implementation. A company that says information was secret but cannot show how it was actually protected will have a harder time proving protectability. In litigation, “reasonable measures” is often one of the most important evidence stories in the case.

When is emergency relief realistic in a trade secret dispute?
Emergency relief is realistic when the plaintiff can move quickly with a defined trade secret, a credible misuse narrative, and evidence of immediate competitive harm. Courts are far less receptive to injunction requests that read like efforts to restrain competition generally or to create a retroactive non-compete. Tailoring is important. The stronger the identification of the trade secret and the clearer the evidence of threatened use or disclosure, the stronger the injunction posture.

How do you prove or defend alleged electronic misappropriation?
Electronic trade secret cases usually turn on timelines and systems evidence. Downloads, repositories, credentials, logs, forwarded emails, cloud transfers, device activity, and user permissions often tell the real story. Plaintiffs need more than a dramatic theory; they need evidence that connects access to improper use or threatened use. Defendants need to move just as fast to preserve systems, explain legitimate access, and test whether the accusation is built on real evidence or on inference piled on inference.

How do employee departures and competitor hiring change the case?
These cases sit at the edge of two competing principles: companies can protect real trade secrets, but employees are generally allowed to move and compete. That is why role-based access, exit conduct, confidentiality obligations, device return, and actual post-departure use matter so much. Plaintiffs often overreach by treating employee knowledge as though it were automatically a trade secret. Defendants often underestimate how damaging sloppy offboarding facts can look. Good strategy respects both the need to protect secrets and the limits the law places on restricting lawful competition.

What should a company do immediately if it suspects trade secret theft?
The first step is preservation, not improvisation. Secure accounts and devices, preserve logs and repositories, implement a litigation hold, and stop internal speculation from turning into bad evidence. Then evaluate what information is actually at issue, who had access to it, what protective measures were in place, and whether emergency relief is warranted. Companies hurt themselves when they take impulsive “self-help” steps without a record or a plan. The best early response is fast, controlled, and evidence-driven.

How are injunctions and damages actually measured in trade secret cases?
Both must be tied closely to the proof. Injunctions should be limited to identified trade secrets and real misuse risk, not drafted as broad restraints untethered to the record. Damages may involve actual loss, unjust enrichment, reasonable royalty, or head-start theories, but each requires disciplined evidence on causation, timing, and value. In practice, courts are skeptical of open-ended damages models and vague requests for sweeping restrictions. The stronger cases are the ones that present a precise story of what was taken, how it was used, and what that use actually changed.