Plausibility under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 16 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 188 (2017)

Authors

Michelle Evans

Citations to This Work

• David S. Levine & Christopher B. Seaman, The Dtsa at One: An Empirical Study of the First Year of Litigation Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 53 Wake Forest L. Rev. 105 (2018)

• Kurt M. Saunders & Nina Golden, Skill or Secret?-the Line Between Trade Secrets and Employee General Skills and Knowledge, 15 N.Y.U. J.L. & Bus. 61 (2018)

• Michelle Evans, Effectiveness of Available Civil Remedies As A Factor Influencing Prosecution of Economic Espionage Act Cases, 57 Washburn L.J. 463 (2018)

• Ioana Vasiu & Lucian Vasiu, Backdoor Man: A Radiograph of Computer Source Code Theft Cases, 18 J. High Tech. L. 1 (2017)

• Kurt M. Saunders & Michelle Evans, A Review of State Criminal Trade Secret Theft Statutes, UCLA J.L. & Tech., Fall 2017, at 1 (2017)

Abstract

With the recent passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), a federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation is now available. To add some familiarity to the Act, the drafters incorporated definitions similar to those of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA). However, even though the provisions may seem familiar, there is a new requirement that is not obvious on the face of the statute- the plausibility requirement for pleading under the federal rules. To understand plausibility; however, one must understand the DTSA. Unfortunately, there is no guidance from the DTSA that can aid interpretation of the statutory definitions for this purpose. Due to the similarities with the UTSA; however, there is some persuasive guidance in the UTSA comments and in federal cases applying state UTSAs. This article reviews these options as a means of navigating the federal plausibility requirement in DTSA actions.

Recommended Citation

Michelle Evans, Plausibility under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 16 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 188 (2017)