In a recent article for the ABA Litigation Section, Thompson Coburn partner Matt Braunel was quoted on a federal appellate decision emphasizing that trade secret litigants should not be required to disclose excessive detail too early in a case—particularly when doing so risks dismissal before discovery even begins.
The discussion centered on Quintara Biosciences v. Ruefeng Biztech, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court order striking nine of the plaintiff’s eleven alleged trade secret claims. That order had effectively resolved most of the case after the defendant successfully moved to strike the claims under Rule 12(f), arguing that the plaintiff’s amended trade secret disclosures were insufficient.
“Don’t believe the hype,” said Matt. He cautioned that the decision “does not stand for the proposition that plaintiffs need not provide particularized disclosure until summary judgment is filed.” Rather, the court held that Rule 12(f) is simply “not the proper tool to get claims dismissed.”
According to Matt, Quintara Biosciences also leaves open the possibility that “a well‑framed Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss may eliminate generic trade secret claims—or at least provide the court with advanced notice of defects in the description of what is alleged to qualify as a trade secret.”
Read the full article here (registration required).
