Your trade secrets are the business.

A trade secret is information that has independent economic value because it is actually a secret, and the owner took reasonable steps to keep it a secret. Specifically, under New York law, the definition of a trade secret is rooted in the Restatement (First) of Torts § 757, comment b, which defines a trade secret as "any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it". Trade secret law is governed by common law, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), adopted in some form by every state except New York, and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). Both Acts target “misappropriation”—obtaining or using protected information through “improper means.”

Trade secret litigation is not like other commercial litigation. These cases move fast. Proprietary information such as source code, algorithms, datasets, customer and pricing information, product roadmaps, manufacturing processes, and go-to-market plans is your most valuable and vulnerable asset. When a departing employee, former co-founder, contractor, or competitor takes that information to a rival or investor (or even just uses it), the damage can happen in seconds, especially today when courts are confronting the intersection of AI capabilities and trade secret law in cases involving reverse engineering, prompt injection, and data scraping.

The stakes in these cases are big. Federal juries have returned trade secret verdicts well into nine figures. Courts have issued worldwide injunctions halting product development. And the DTSA has extended its reach extraterritorially, permitting recovery of worldwide damages when an act in furtherance of the misappropriation was committed in the United States, even when the core misappropriation occurred abroad.

Trade Secret Litigation in New York

New York is the only state that has not adopted the UTSA. Here, trade secret litigation is grounded in New York common law and a fact-intensive inquiry: whether the information was actually secret, whether it had independent economic value because it was secret, and whether reasonable measures were taken to protect it.

Pending legislation in Albany could change the state law landscape by adopting the UTSA in New York. If enacted, it would materially alter the procedural framework for trade secret claims in New York state courts.

New York courts evaluate these issues using multiple factors commonly framed as a six-factor analysis. Trade secrets are proven through operational reality: how the information is created, labeled, stored, accessed, shared, and audited. That is why trade secret cases are not just legal disputes. They are evidence disputes.

New York trade secret litigation often involves parallel state and federal claims. The federal DTSA provides a federal cause of action for misappropriation tied to products or services used in interstate or foreign commerce. Trade secret cases are time-sensitive by nature, and sophisticated trade secret practices emphasize immediate readiness for temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctive relief proceedings.

Emergency Injunctive Relief in Trade Secret Disputes

Emergency relief is not about theatrics. Whether you are seeking or opposing a TRO or preliminary injunction, courts focus on the practical realities:

1. Define the secret with precision. Courts are skeptical of vague “kitchen-sink” descriptions (“all confidential information,” “our business methods,” “our algorithms”). If you can’t articulate what the secret is with specificity, you will struggle to get emergency relief, and you may invite discovery limitations that cripple the case. This is one of the most common inflection points in modern trade secret disputes, especially in software and AI.

2. Show real misuse risk, not just competitive overlap. The fact that someone joined a competitor is not enough. Courts want evidence of likely misappropriation or threatened misuse: suspicious download activity, unusual access patterns, device wiping, forwarding to personal accounts, inconsistent narratives, or technical fingerprints in a competing product.

3. Make irreparable harm concrete. “Loss of secrecy” is powerful, but you still need a record that connects the misappropriation to harm that money alone can’t fix: lost first-mover advantage, pricing erosion, customer poaching, disclosure to a direct competitor, or integration into a product roadmap.

4. Align the injunction with workable guardrails. Overbroad injunctions that look like a disguised non-compete or a business shutdown order are harder to obtain and harder to defend on appeal. The best injunctions are tight: narrowly tailored restraints, device return and imaging protocols, restrictions on workstreams, customer-contact limitations, and “use and disclosure” prohibitions with teeth.

Clean Room Protocols in Trade Secret Litigation

A Clean Room is a development process designed to reduce the risk of trade secret claims by separating teams, inputs, and documentation so you can prove independent development and avoid unlawful “incoming” secrets. Good trade secret practices often emphasize operational controls and cross-functional coordination because the facts live across departments.

The hardest cases are the ones where everyone insists they “built it independently,” but the development process was exposed directly or indirectly to outside protected information. A well-documented trade secret protection program can be the difference between obtaining emergency injunctive relief and being shown the door.

A Clean Room program typically includes:

• Access controls: who can see what, and why
• Source-of-truth documentation: where specifications come from (and where they don’t)
• Tooling and audit trails: repo permissions, download logs, device management, offboarding checklists
• “No outside code/data” discipline: clear rules about copy/paste, personal accounts, and external devices
• Independent development records: contemporaneous notes, tickets, design docs, and review trails

Clean Rooms aren’t just defensive. They can be offensive: if your company receives a cease-and-desist accusing you of using a competitor’s information, a credible Clean Room record can shorten the fight, contain discovery, and protect your product timeline.

Tools and Remedies that Matter in Trade Secret Claims

Trade secret litigation is about controlling information flow. Our courts have tools for that.

Civil claims and equitable relief

We bring or defend claims involving misappropriation, breach of confidentiality, breach of fiduciary duty/duty of loyalty, unfair competition, and related contract and tort theories, depending on the relationship and the misconduct.

DTSA and the extraordinary remedy of ex parte seizure

The DTSA authorizes ex parte seizure in extraordinary circumstances to prevent propagation or dissemination of a trade secret. It’s a powerful but rare remedy because courts require strict showing and expect careful, narrowly framed requests. When it fits, it can preserve evidence and prevent irreversible spread. When it doesn’t, asking for it can backfire.

Civil and criminal overlap

Federal law provides criminal trade secret penalties for trade secret appropriation under the Economic Espionage Act. New York also has criminal statutes addressing unlawful duplication and possession of computer-related material. That does not mean every trade secret case is a criminal case. But it does mean conduct can straddle civil and criminal exposure: something we account for when building the record, handling communications, and planning strategy.

Trade secrets and FOIL

If you do business with New York agencies or submit proprietary information in regulated settings, trade secret protection intersects with public records obligations. New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) generally favors disclosure, but it contains an exemption for records that would reveal trade secrets or would cause substantial competitive injury if disclosed. Pending bills would require entities seeking FOIL “trade secret” withholding to specifically identify the portions withheld and reapply on a cycle (up to 3-year periods) rather than leaving exclusions effectively indefinite.

Ready to Move on a Trade Secret Dispute?

We are a litigation firm. We do not draft compliance programs, negotiate venture agreements, or advise on regulatory filings. What we do is prepare cases for trial and, when necessary, try them. That focus shapes how we work: every decision, from the initial investigation to the final brief, is made with the courtroom, judge, and jury in mind.

We are also candid. Not every suspected misappropriation is actionable. Not every trade secret claim survives scrutiny. Part of our value is giving clients an honest assessment of where they stand, what their case is worth, what it will cost, and what it will take to win. That clarity is the foundation of good strategy.

Trade secrets are the crown jewels of technology. Protecting them or defending against allegations that they have been taken requires litigation counsel who understands both the technology and the law and who moves quickly when speed matters.

If you believe trade secrets have been taken or you have been accused of misappropriation, timing matters. The first decisions you make often determine whether you can get emergency relief, contain discovery, and protect your competitive position. Let’s talk.