Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) requires pleading a connection between a trade secret, a product or service, and interstate commerce. But failure to prove such a connection divests the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. This article summarizes the first three years of cases discussing the jurisdictional element and explores implications.
The DTSA has a limited statutory scope: it protects trade secrets if they “relate[] to a product or service used, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. 1836(b)(1). Courts have interpreted this as a statutory limitation on federal protection for trade secrets. Congress presumably could have protected all “trade secrets affecting commerce,” but it did not. Congress protected trade secrets that are “related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate of foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. 1836(b)(1) And since federal jurisdiction is limited and defined by statute, federal jurisdiction only reaches trade secrets with sufficient relationship to a product or service flowing in interstate commerce.
Courts have consistently held that DTSA plaintiffs must therefore plead and prove connections between its trade secret, its product or service, and interstate commerce. Failure to do so risks dismissal. In DLMC, Inc. v. Flores, No. 18-00352 DKW-RT, 2019 WL 309754 (D. Haw. Jan 23, 2019), the plaintiff plead theft of trade secrets related to its healthcare services. Its services are overseen by Medicare and Medicaid, it is regulated by the federal government, and receives most of its income from federal funding. Id. at 1. It also receives insurance payouts from companies located outside of Hawaii. Id. However, it has no clients or patients outside of the state, and thus “it appears that [plaintiff] does not offer any interstate services.” Id. at 2. Accordingly the district court dismissed the DTSA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction: “Absent at least an argument articulating how the 'client lists' that [defendant] allegedly stole on behalf of [another entity] relate to the provision of interstate commerce, and facts in support of that argument, the Court cannot conclude that it has jurisdiction over the DTSA claim, or, hence, over this case.” Id. at 2.
DLMC is part of a subtle trend among district courts holding trade secret owners to the DTSA's jurisdictional element. Another, earlier example, is Government Employees Insurance Company v. Nealy, 262 F. Supp. 3d 153, 173 (E.D. Pa. 2017), where the district court sua sponte dismissed the DTSA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction: “GEICO's complaint does not allege any nexus between interstate or foreign commerce and the alleged trade secrets …. This deficiency, in itself, warrants dismissal of plaintiff's DTSA claim.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?