Welcome to WilmerHale’s bulletin on recent trade secret case law and relevant news items. We’ve affectionately nicknamed it “Readily Ascertainable” because, unlike a trade secret, it should be easy to figure out.
This month’s cases address when a prevailing party on a trade secret misappropriation claim can receive attorney’s fees, the characterization of an LLC’s member list as a trade secret, the final chapter in a trade secret litigation spanning nearly two decades, and how the fact-intensive nature of trade secret misappropriation claims can make securing an early summary judgment decision challenging.
Columbia Sportswear Co. v. Ferreira et al., 2025 WL 1520299 (D. Or. May 28, 2025)
Columbia Sportswear’s trade secret claims against former employees can proceed to trial
Columbia Sportswear sued two former employees for misappropriation of trade secrets under both the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and Oregon’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“OUTSA”), alleging that the employees took confidential information with them when they left to work for rival Marolina—including a presentation about the competition between the two companies and comparisons of their product lines. Id. at *4. The court denied cross-motions for summary judgment on these claims, reasoning inter alia that “[w]hether Columbia’s documents constitute trade secrets is a fact-intensive question best left for the jury.” Id. at *7-8. Defendants argued that the documents that they had downloaded were not trade secrets because at least some of them were public. The court disagreed, noting that the partial public nature of the information —which combined publicly-available information with market pricing data purchased by Columbia and market analysis by one of the defendants—was not dispositive. Id. The court also found an issue of triable fact as to whether downloading the files at issue constitutes misappropriation. Id. at *8. Although Columbia could not show that the employees “used” or disclosed” trade secrets, the court found that use/disclosure was unnecessary— “[u]nder the plain language of the DTSA and OUTSA, acquisition of a trade secret through, for example, breach of a duty to maintain secrecy can constitute misappropriation.” Id.
Perry v. Stuart, 2025 WL 1501935 (Cal. Ct. App. May 27, 2025)
California Court of Appeal holds that an LLC’s member list is a trade secret
This case arose from a demand for inspection of records of California limited liability company Milestone by former members. The trial court permitted disclosure of some of the LLC’s documents, but “ordered the redaction of member names and addresses from Milestone's member list after finding the list to be a protected trade secret.” Id. at *1. On appeal, the appeals court affirmed, concluding that there was substantial evidence in the record that the LLC member list constituted a trade secret. The court explained that the development of the list reflected “the time, money and effort to find the people willing to” invest and the “thousands of hours engaged in marketing, advertising, and soliciting potential members.” Id. at *18. The court also credited the evidence that Milestone limits access to the list to “need to know” and that it is not publicly available. Id.
AMS-ORAM USA INC. v. RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, Inc., No. 4:08-cv-00451, Dkt. 925-1 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2025)
Seventeen-year trade secret case finally ends with entry of a final judgment that includes exemplary damages
A trade secret case between two companies that make light sensors for smart phones, which arose from information shared as part of a potential merger agreement, has concluded after seventeen years and multiple trials and appeals. On May 23, 2025, the court granted the parties’ joint motion for final judgment, which awarded ams-ORAM-approximately $52 million, including approximately $8.5 million in disgorgement damages and $17 million in exemplary damages for trade secret misappropriation. The entry of final judgment comes following the Federal Circuit’s decision on the head start period and its effect on remedies, which we covered in our March bulletin.
Aptly Tech. Co. v. Wu et al., 2025 WL 1433704 (Wash. Ct. App. May 19, 2025)
Court of Appeals of Washington reverses award of attorney’s fees to prevailing party on trade secret misappropriation claim, concluding that the claim was not made in bad faith
Aptly, an information technology consulting company that provides software development and design services to Microsoft, largely won a bench trial against defendants (a husband and wife, one of whom worked for Aptly) on a number of business-related torts. Id. at *1. Aptly, however, did not prevail on its trade secret misappropriation claims, which were based on a theory that Aptly’s Vice President of Business Development had transmitted several documents (including a specialized template and other Aptly materials) to her husband, also at a consulting company that worked for Microsoft. Id. The trial court ultimately awarded attorney’s fees to defendants for Aptly’s failed claim for misappropriation of the template under Washington’s UTSA, which allows for attorney’s fees in favor of a prevailing party “[i]f a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith.” Id. at *5-6. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court had abused its discretion by finding bad faith because Aptly had colorable arguments that the template was made as part of a collaboration with Microsoft and--at a minimum--might be protectible even if they were owned by Microsoft. Id.
