Defend Trade Secrets Act Archives

Irreparable harm? Don’t bury your trade secret

by Jodi Benassi | Aug 6, 2026 | Trade Secrets

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiff’s asserted harms, including lost profits and injury from the alleged trade secret injury, could be adequately remedied through monetary damages. Revenue Management Solutions, LLC v. Commerce Bank, Case No. 25-3159 (8th Cir. July 23, 2026) (Gruender, Benton, Erickson, JJ.)

Revenue Management Solutions (RMS) licensed to Commerce Bank software that processes and organizes records and payment information. Commerce marketed the software under the name RemitConnect. Under the parties’ license agreement, Commerce received access to RMS’s confidential software and source code but was prohibited from copying or disclosing the software or source code, reverse engineering the software, or creating derivative works based on RMS’s proprietary technology.

In 2018, Commerce began developing its own software, RemitConnect 2.0. By 2025, RMS observed a decline in Commerce’s use of the licensed version of its software. Suspecting that Commerce had reverse engineered and copied its software, RMS moved for a preliminary injunction to prohibit Commerce from using RemitConnect 2.0. The district court denied the motion, concluding that RMS failed to present sufficient evidence of irreparable harm. RMS appealed.

RMS argued that the district court failed to recognize the irreparable harm resulting from Commerce’s misappropriation of its trade secrets. RMS asserted claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act, identifying two categories of trade secrets: sets of input-output data and segregation logic. According to RMS, Commerce misappropriated those trade secrets in developing RemitConnect 2.0.

The Eighth Circuit noted that the district court did not expressly discuss RMS’s trade secrets in its irreparable-harm analysis. The Court explained that RMS itself framed its alleged harm primarily as lost profits, referring to the misuse and disclosure of its trade secrets only in passing through a few parenthetical references. By characterizing its injury in terms of lost profits, RMS permitted the district court to conclude that any potential harm could be adequately remedied by an award of damages. The Eight Circuit thus concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that RMS failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

Practice note: Although the loss, misuse, or disclosure of trade secrets may constitute irreparable harm, a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief should clearly articulate how the alleged misappropriation causes harm that cannot be adequately remedied by monetary damages. Framing the injury primarily as lost profits or another quantifiable economic loss may undermine the argument that preliminary injunctive relief is necessary.

Sixth Circuit Endorses Sealing of Filings to Protect Confidentiality of Alleged Trade Secrets

by Paul Devinsky | Jan 27, 2022 | Trade Secrets

On appeal from a dismissal based on a failure to state a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted the litigants’ motion to seal their briefs and file publicly available redacted versions in order to protect the confidentiality of the appellant’s alleged trade secrets. Magnesium Machine, LLC v. Terves, LLC, Case No. 20-3998 (6th Cir. Jan. 14, 2022) (Donald, J.)

The Sixth Circuit reasoned that the case had been brought under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which requires courts to take “action as may be necessary and appropriate to preserve the confidentiality of trade secrets.” The Court also relied on precedent to the effect that trade secrets generally provide a justification (i.e., a “compelling reason”) for sealing. The Court left open the possibility of reconsidering its ruling if it later determines that any of the redacted information should be made available to the public.

Practice Note: Public disclosure—even in a court document—can destroy a trade secret. Litigants should be careful when disclosing information that is even alleged to be a trade secret, even if they are not certain whether the information qualifies as a trade secret since, if and when litigated, the information may later be held to qualify.

The Plot Plot Thickens: Trade Secret, Tortious Interference, Fiduciary Duty Claims Survive Motion to Dismiss

by Amol Parikh | Nov 11, 2021 | Trade Secrets

A judge from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sitting by designation in the US District Court for the District of Delaware denied a motion to dismiss claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty, finding that the plaintiff plausibly pled facts supporting each claim. Park Lawn Corp. v. PlotBox Inc., Case No. 20-cv-01484-SB (D. Del. Oct. 29, 2021) (Bibas, J., sitting by designation).

Park Lawn and PlotBox are competitors in the cemetery business. In 2018, Park Lawn began developing software to automate various cemetery management tasks to cut costs. Park Lawn also hoped to generate revenue by licensing the software to competitors. Park Lawn’s CEO, however, had been leaking information to PlotBox about the software, its unique features and Park Lawn’s strategy for licensing. The CEO also helped PlotBox in its efforts to recruit Park Lawn’s chief technology officer, who had been overseeing the software project. The CEO acted despite having signed confidentiality, non-compete and non-solicitation agreements. Park Lawn ultimately discovered the CEO’s involvement with PlotBox and fired him. Soon after, the CEO became PlotBox’s chairman. Park Lawn sued PlotBox for stealing its trade secrets, interfering with the CEO’s employment agreements and helping the CEO breach his fiduciary duty to Park Lawn. PlotBox moved to dismiss.

The district court denied the motion. As to the trade secret claims, PlotBox argued that it did not misappropriate any trade secrets since the CEO never actually gave PlotBox any information. The court found that the complaint alleged otherwise. In particular, the court noted the complaint alleged:

The CEO and PlotBox exchanged compromising emails discussing the “status,” “developments in ‘death-tech,’” and the CEO’s interest in becoming PlotBox’s chairman.
The CEO invited PlotBox executives to his home to discuss a “Park Lawn Update” and “Technical Presentation.”

The court found that these allegations plausibly alleged that the CEO could have disclosed a trade secret.

PlotBox argued that even if it did learn something from the CEO, it never knew that the CEO obtained that information through improper means. The district court again disagreed, finding that PlotBox should have known something was amiss since the CEO broke a promise to keep quiet. While the court acknowledged that PlotBox may have never read the CEO’s confidentiality agreement, PlotBox should have reasonably inferred that it was improper for the CEO of a competitor to disclose his company’s innovations.

PlotBox also argued for dismissal because any information it received from the CEO did not count as a trade secret under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. Once again, the district court disagreed, explaining that Park Lawn alleged that the information provided was technical in nature (e.g., unique features of software and strategy of selling it to rivals), Park Lawn took adequate measures to protect the information by only allowing a few employees who signed confidentiality agreements to access the software and the information was valuable because it was secret. The court thus permitted the trade secret claim to proceed.

The [...]

Continue Reading