USA – CALIFORNIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Aaron Nathan, Samantha Jameson and Azra Hadzimehmodovic, Tensegrity Law Group LLP
Tensegrity Law Group LLP 1676 International Drive, Suite 910 McLean, VA 22102 USA Tel: 650 802 6000 Fax: 650 802 6001 Email: Aaron.Nathan@tensegritylawgroup.com Web: tensegritylawgroup.com
Introduction Trade secret litigation is becoming an ever more important part of intellectual property strategy, par - ticularly in California. For example, trade secret litiga - tion increased in federal courts in 2025, and the most active venue was the Central District of California. There have been numerous developments in trade secret litigation since the beginning of 2025 that have significant impacts on companies doing business in California. These include the confirmation of the avail - ability of worldwide damages when acts take place in part in the United States, the clarification of the significant early disclosures required under California trade secret statutes and relatively relaxed early dis - closure requirements for federal trade secret claims, and the possibility of further emphasis on trade secret litigation in light of increased protection of employee mobility in California. Finally, no account of the evolv - ing trade secret litigation landscape in California would be complete without an attempt to grapple with the complex interaction between legal and technological developments related to AI and the protections and risks presented by trade secrets. These developments are important for companies litigating and conducting business in California to consider as part of their trade secret strategy decisions. Disclosure Requirements and Ultimate Standards of Proof One of the ever-present issues in trade secret cases is how much the plaintiff needs to disclose about what the alleged trade secrets actually are, and when that disclosure must take place. In August 2025, the Ninth Circuit clarified an important difference between the timing of disclosure under the California Uniform
Trade Secret Act (CUTSA) and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) with respect to these dis - closures. In Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v Ruifeng Biz - tech , Inc., 149 F.4th 1081 (9th Cir. 2025), the court explained that, under DTSA, “a plaintiff must prove that the claimed trade secret has ‘sufficient particular - ity to separate it from matters of general knowledge in the trade or of special knowledge of those persons... skilled in the trade’”. Id. at 1087 (emphasis omitted, alteration in original). Importantly, this requirement is formulated not as a discovery obligation but as part of the proof of facts for trial. Hence, as the Quintara court stated, “[w]hether a trade secret is identified with ‘sufficient particularity’ is a question of fact” and “a district court may grant summary judgment only if there is no genuine dispute that a plaintiff could iden - tify a trade secret with ‘sufficient particularity’”. Id. at 1087-88. In contrast, the Quintara court explained that “[s]tate law in California, where this case arises, takes a different approach under CUTSA’s rule that a plaintiff shall identify a trade secret with ‘reasonable particularity’ before discovery commences”. Id. at 1088 (quoting Cal. Civ Proc. Code § 2019.210). Thus, while the California statute requires a certain level of trade secret disclosure before discovery can com - mence, the federal statute requires that “reasonable particularity” of trade secret allegations be treated as part of the plaintiff’s ultimate proof of facts. This distinction impacts the claims that can proceed to discovery under the DTSA and CUTSA. In Quintera, the district court struck, or as the Ninth Circuit would write, “functionally dismiss[ed]”, id. at 1089, federal trade secret claims for failure to comply with a dis - covery order requiring them to be disclosed with “rea -
178 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook