USA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dawn Mertineit, Michael Wexler and Marcus Mintz, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
statute of limitations has run and/or whether injunctive relief is warranted. See, eg, Elite Semiconductor, Inc. v Anchor Semiconductor , 2025 WL 82217 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2025) (statute of limitations begins running upon discovery of any evidence of misappropriation, even if ultimately unable to prove claim); Pliteq, Inc. v Mostafa , 775 F. Supp. 3d 1231, 1259 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 31 2025) (delay of approximately two months after learn - ing of data breach was not fatal to request for injunc - tive relief, although the court noted it was a close call, while also crediting plaintiff for trying to arrange informal return of data in the interim); iTalent v Kotha (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2025) (“The Court notes that the gap in time between itD’s filing of the initial complaint and submitting the TRO application is explained by the need to conduct a thorough investigation before asking the Court for relief”). Of course, the glaring juxtaposition of these divergent outcomes highlights the need for ongoing vigilance to protect trade secrets (including through strong confidentiality policies and practices, well-drafted contracts, and rigorous internal controls amid an ever-evolving technological landscape), as well as reasonable measures to prepare for potential litiga - tion (including identifying trade secrets in advance of a mandatory disclosure in discovery, moving promptly to protect critical IP, and developing defensible dam - ages models).
As for businesses hiring employees from competitors, the significant trade secrets verdicts we have seen in recent years make it clear that such businesses must implement strict protocols to guard against mis - appropriation of the former employer’s critical trade secret assets, which can lead to damages awards that may even have the potential to bankrupt the com - pany. Even if the defendant company defeats a trade secret claim, it can spend millions of dollars defending against such suits, further underscoring the need to avoid threatened lawsuits entirely. Conclusion Businesses should regularly review their restrictive covenant agreements to ensure compliance with vari - ous state laws, federal rules, and/or judicial trends. They should also take measures to prevent informa - tion loss and mitigate harm that may occur notwith - standing best efforts to prevent trade secret misap - propriation.
176 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook