USA – DELAWARE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Travis S. Hunter, Richards, Layton & Finger PA
directly in federal court, the statute has made trade secret litigation more available and, in many matters, more appealing to plaintiffs. Key Considerations in Litigating Trade Secret Claims in Delaware As trade secret claims have become more common, Delaware courts have imposed increasingly rigorous requirements at the pleading and early litigation stag - es. Practitioners should expect scrutiny of how trade secrets are defined, how they are protected, and how alleged harm is articulated. Pleading Trade Secrets with Specificity One of the most significant developments is the requirement that plaintiffs identify their alleged trade secrets with sufficient specificity. It is no longer suf - ficient to rely on generalised descriptions of “confi - dential” or “proprietary” information. Courts expect plaintiffs to articulate what the trade secret is in a way that distinguishes it from general business information or publicly available knowledge. Recent decisions, including JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Argus Information & Advisory Services Inc. and California Safe Soil, LLC v KDC Agribusiness, LLC , reflect this approach. In California Safe Soil , the Dela - ware Court of Chancery found that the plaintiff met the specificity requirement because (i) it identified the trade secrets in the licence agreement that gave defendant access to such trade secrets by defining “trade secrets” therein and including an exhibit with a “nonexhaustive list of purported trade secrets”, and (ii) it adequately identified the trade secrets in its trade secret disclosures and amended complaint, and sub - sequently amended the disclosures, where necessary. California Safe Soil, LLC v KDC Agribusiness, LLC , No 2021-0498-MTZ, 2025 WL 98479, at *18 (Del. Ch. 10 Jan 2025). Delaware courts emphasise the need to distinguish trade secrets from general business information and to define them with sufficient precision to permit meaningful evaluation of the claim. Where descrip - tions were too broad, courts were willing to dismiss or narrow the claims, while more carefully defined trade secrets were more likely to proceed. Delaware federal courts have also addressed the limits of trade secret
claims at the pleading stage. In Fair Isaac Corp. v Gurobi Optimization, LLC , the court dismissed a mis - appropriation claim and rejected reliance on a theory of “inevitable disclosure” as a basis for injunctive relief under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. 2025 WL 2636403 (D. Del. 12 Sept 2025). For practitioners, this creates a practical challenge. On one hand, the complaint must be specific enough to survive a motion to dismiss. On the other hand, the plaintiff must avoid disclosing the very information it seeks to protect. Navigating that tension requires careful planning before a complaint is filed, including identifying the trade secrets at issue and determin - ing how they can be described without unnecessary disclosure. Managing Confidential Information in Litigation Delaware courts have also developed procedures to address the handling of confidential information in liti - gation. These include the use of multi-tier protective orders and rules governing the filing of materials under seal. Practitioners should be prepared to justify confi - dentiality designations and to work within structured protocols governing access to sensitive materials. Remedies and Damages Considerations In addition to pleading requirements, courts have addressed issues relating to remedies and damages in trade secret cases. See McLaren v Smash Fran- chise Partners, LLC , 319 A.3d 909 (Del. 2024) (affirm - ing final judgment and denial of attorneys’ fees under DUTSA); Fair Isaac Corp. v Gurobi Optimization, LLC , No CV 25-00194-RGA, 2025 WL 2636403 (D. Del. 12 Sept 2025) (granting motion to dismiss, considering when injunctive relief is appropriate under DTSA). Plaintiffs often seek injunctive relief to prevent the continued use or disclosure of trade secrets, par - ticularly in cases involving employee mobility. Courts must evaluate whether such relief is appropriate and, if so, the scope of any injunction. Recent decisions described below, including Arxada Holdings NA Inc. v Harvey and the Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in California Safe Soil , pro - vide guidance on how courts approach these issues, including the types of monetary and equitable relief
192 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook