2018The William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository (William & Mary)Open access

Snapshot of Trade Secret Developments

Elizabeth A. Rowe

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

As we enter the second year of the DTSA, this Article presents a snapshot of developments to assess whether there appears to be any significant doctrinal changes afoot in trade secret litigation— including civil and/or criminal—during the past year. Professors David Levine and Christopher Seaman provided some empirical data and quantitative analysis of the case filings during the first year of litigation under the DTSA (from May 2016 to May 2017). This Article complements their excellent work by taking a qualitative look at some of the substantive rulings from the following year. My assessment based on this limited sampling is that there does not appear to be any dramatic changes to the doctrinal development of the law to date. Rather, courts continue to search for fairness as they struggle with problems common to trade secret litigation regarding, for instance, trade secret identification, misappropriation, and damages.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

As we enter the second year of the DTSA, this Article presents a snapshot of developments to assess whether there appears to be any significant doctrinal changes afoot in trade secret litigation— including civil and/or criminal—during the past year. Professors David Levine and Christopher Seaman provided some empirical data and quantitative analysis of the case filings during the first year of litigation under the DTSA (from May 2016 to May 2017). This Article complements their excellent work by taking a qualitative look at some of the substantive rulings from the following year. My assessment based on this limited sampling is that there does not appear to be any dramatic changes to the doctrinal development of the law to date. Rather, courts continue to search for fairness as they struggle with problems common to trade secret litigation regarding, for instance, trade secret identification, misappropriation, and damages.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

As we enter the second year of the DTSA, this Article presents a snapshot of developments to assess whether there appears to be any significant doctrinal changes afoot in trade secret litigation— including civil and/or criminal—during the past year. Professors David Levine and Christopher Seaman provided some empirical data and quantitative analysis of the case filings during the first year of litigation under the DTSA (from May 2016 to May 2017). This Article complements their excellent work by taking a qualitative look at some of the substantive rulings from the following year. My assessment based on this limited sampling is that there does not appear to be any dramatic changes to the doctrinal development of the law to date. Rather, courts continue to search for fairness as they struggle with problems common to trade secret litigation regarding, for instance, trade secret identification, misappropriation, and damages.

Key concepts: Misappropriation, Trade secret, Industrial espionage, Damages, Law, Political science, Espionage, Snapshot (computer storage)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Snapshot of Trade Secret Developments — Research Paper | ScholarLens