Proskauer on Trade Secrets

In Lawson v. Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the forfeiture of certain stock awards for violating a covenant not to compete.  Like the Seventh Circuit in LKQ Corp. v. Rutledge(which applied Delaware law), the Tenth Circuit concluded that, under Kansas law, the remedy of forfeiting

On April 22, 2025, the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a sales manager and his new employer on claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), the Oklahoma Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“OUTSA”), and common law claims for misappropriation of confidential business information and civil conspiracy, which were brought by his former

On March 27, 2025, in Stimlabs LLC v. Griffiths, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ordered a former executive, Sarah Griffiths, to face claims related to her alleged theft of Stimlab’s trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and the Georgia Trade Secrets Act (“GTSA”) after denying her application

On April 4, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama’s ruling dismissing Alabama Aircraft Industries’ (“AAI”) trade secret misappropriation claim against Boeing, thereby allowing AAI to pursue unjust enrichment damages in addition to amounts previously recovered on its breach of contract claim. See Alabama Aircraft Industries

On March 13, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a trade secret misappropriation claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), finding that the employer failed to plead it had taken reasonable measures to maintain the secrecy of its alleged trade secrets.

In Negative, Inc. v. McNamara, 2025

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit allowed an employer to enforce a “forfeiture-for-competition” against a former plant manager. The Court explained that, under Delaware law, forfeiture-for competition is not subject to the same reasonableness standard as a traditional non-compete clause. The case is LKQ Corporation v. Robert Rutledge

On December 3, 2024, a U.S District Court for the District of Massachusetts jury awarded Plaintiff Insulet Corporation $452 million in compensatory and punitive damages after finding Defendants willfully misappropriated Insulet’s trade secrets. Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow Co. Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-11780 (D. Mass.)

Insulet is a manufacturer of tubeless insulin pump patches

Finding errors in the lower court’s jury instructions and evidentiary rulings, the Virginia’s Court of Appeals struck down a $2 billion trade secrets award, the largest trade secrets verdict in the state’s history.  Despite striking the damages award, the court upheld the lower court’s determination that Appian Corp (Appian) had properly defined its trade secrets,