Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Judge Andrews Finds Plaintiff Failed to Plead a Plausible Trade Secret Misappropriation Claim

By Fox Rothschild LLP on August 17, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Lithero, LLC v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Civil Action No. 19-2320-RGA (D.Del. August 13, 2020), the Court found that Plaintiff failed to plead a plausible trade secret misappropriation claim under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) despite the fact that the Court had granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file its complaint under seal to avoid any possible public disclosure. The Court explained that “to adequately plead trade secret misappropriation under the DTSA, a plaintiff must identify a trade secret with sufficient particularity so as to provide notice to a defendant of what he is accused of misappropriating and for a court to determine whether misappropriation has or is threatened to occur.” Id. at *2 (internal quotations omitted).

In finding that Plaintiff failed to plausibly plead a trade secret misappropriation claim the Court noted that Plaintiff’s complaint only described the alleged trade secret in broad terms and pointed to large, general areas of information that Plaintiff allegedly shared with Defendant but did not identify what constitutes the trade secrets within those general areas. Id. at *3. Without knowing what in those general areas of information shared is a trade secret, the complaint does not put Defendant on sufficient notice of what it is accused of misappropriating. Id. Thus, the Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to plausibly plead a trade secret misappropriation claim and, therefore, granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim.

Also, given that the action was brought under federal question jurisdiction and the trade secret misappropriation claim under the DTSA was the only claim over which the Court had original jurisdiction, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. Id. at *3-4.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Organization:
    Fox Rothschild LLP

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo