On July 23, 2025, the North Carolina Business Court denied summary judgment in United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc., allowing claims of trade secret misappropriation and unfair trade practices to proceed to trial.
The dispute arises from the departure of Dr. Robert Roscigno, a former executive at United Therapeutics Corporation (UTC), who joined competitor Liquidia Technologies. UTC alleges that Roscigno retained and used confidential documents, such as financial models, regulatory strategies, marketing plans, and clinical trial data, while developing a competing therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension
Key Takeaways from the Court’s Analysis
Liquidia sought summary judgment, contending that the documents were not trade secrets and that UTC had failed to take reasonable steps to protect their confidentiality. The Business Court rejected these contentions on multiple grounds:
- Liquidia argued that individual components of some documents were publicly available and, consequently, ineligible for trade secret protection. The Court disagreed because UTC had adduced evidence of curating and synthesizing those components into a compilation that could qualify for trade secret protection.
- Although Liquidia had pointed to supposed lapses in UTC’s enforcement of its purported trade secrets, the Court found that UTC’s internal policies—including employee handbooks, confidentiality agreements, restricted access protocols, and technology use policies—were sufficient to raise a triable issue on whether the company took reasonable steps to protect its information.
- The Court credited expert testimony submitted by UTC. That testimony included an analysis of the subject documents’ strategic value and the potential “head start” they could have provided to Liquidia.
Why This Case Matters
The Court’s ruling reflects a broader trend: trade secret disputes often hinge on factual nuances that are ill-suited for resolution at the summary judgment stage. Questions about the existence of a trade secret, the adequacy of protective measures, and the nature of the alleged misappropriation typically require a full evidentiary record and credibility determinations best left to trial.
This decision is also a timely reminder for businesses—especially those in IP-intensive sectors, like biotech and pharma—that trade secret protection is not just about labeling documents “confidential.” Courts will look closely at how companies actually handle sensitive information, from onboarding to offboarding, and whether their practices align with their policies.
