Federal Appellate Courts Continue to Require That Trade Secrets Be Defined and Definite

At a Glance

• Although there may be jurisdictional differences as to when a plaintiff must sufficiently identify its trade secrets, recent federal appellate court decisions confirm that the identification of trade secrets continues to receive close scrutiny.
• Trade secrets must ultimately be identified with specificity. Even where courts permit a plaintiff to proceed past the pleading stage without detailed identification, federal appellate decisions increasingly emphasize that trade secret plaintiffs must eventually define the alleged secrets with sufficient precision — beyond broad categories or general descriptions — to allow courts and fact finders to evaluate whether the information actually qualifies as a trade secret, particularly at summary judgment, trial, and post-trial review.

Across jurisdictions, federal appellate courts continue to scrutinize how plaintiffs identify, define, and substantiate their alleged trade secrets — at pleading, summary judgment, and post-trial stages alike.

In 2025 and early 2026, we have been given several important appellate decisions emphasizing that courts continue to closely examine whether plaintiffs have articulated their alleged trade secrets with enough specificity.

Below are four notable decisions.

The Federal Circuit’s Applied Predictive Technologies Decision

Most recently, in Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc. v. MarketDial, Inc. No. 2024-1751, 2026 WL 218291 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 28, 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment against a trade secret plaintiff that failed to sufficiently identify and substantiate its alleged trade secrets.

The court concluded that APT’s interrogatory responses and summary judgment opposition relied on cursory, high-level descriptions of broad categories or sources of information rather than clearly defined trade secrets that a factfinder could evaluate under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act’s (DTSA) statutory definition. Although APT characterized certain alleged trade secrets as compilations, it did not explain with sufficient clarity how those compilations derived independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable. The court emphasized that labeling information as a “compilation” does not relieve a plaintiff of its burden to define the protected information in a manner that allows application of the statutory elements.

The Federal Circuit also rejected APT’s reliance on hundreds of exhibits, expert reports, and technical materials without clearly linking those materials to a defined trade secret theory. As the court explained, courts are not required to sift through voluminous records to assemble a plaintiff’s trade secret definition. The burden remains on the plaintiff to identify and define the alleged trade secrets and to connect the evidence to that definition.

Importantly, the court clarified that even in jurisdictions without a formal “particularity” requirement, plaintiffs must still define their alleged trade secrets in a way that allows a factfinder to determine whether the information meets the statutory elements, including that it has independent economic value and is not readily ascertainable. At summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to create a triable issue on those elements.

The decision reinforces that identification and evidentiary support are inseparable: without a sufficiently particular identification of the trade secrets at issue, courts cannot meaningfully assess secrecy, economic value, or misappropriation.

The Federal Circuit’s Coda Development Decision

In Coda Development s.r.o. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 160 F.4th 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to set aside a jury verdict awarding $2.8 million in compensatory damages and $61.2 million in punitive damages, finding that Coda’s alleged trade secrets were not sufficiently definite, not secret, or not used by Goodyear.

The Federal Circuit reiterated that “a trade secret plaintiff must ‘defin[e] the information for which protection is sought with sufficient definiteness to permit a court to apply the criteria for protection . . . and to determine the fact of an appropriation.’” Id. at 1355. The court agreed with the trial court’s setting aside of the verdict because it found numerous issues with the identification and/or articulation of multiple alleged trade secrets. The decision underscores that even after a favorable jury verdict, courts will closely examine whether the alleged trade secrets were sufficiently identified.

The Ninth Circuit’s Quintara Decision

In Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc., 149 F. 4th 1081 (9th Cir. 2025), the Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal of trade secret claims, holding that whether a trade secret has been identified with “sufficient particularity” under the DTSA is a factual issue, best resolved after discovery. The district court originally struck most of the plaintiff’s claims for failing to define the trade secrets with “reasonable particularity.” In doing so, the district court borrowed a rule from California law — specifically California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) — that requires a CUTSA plaintiff to identify a trade secret with “reasonable particularity” before discovery commences. The CUTSA’s “reasonable particularity” requirement differs from the DTSA’s “sufficient particularity” requirement, which does not require a plaintiff to particularly identify its trade secrets at the pleading stage.

The Ninth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in striking the claims because it relied on a California rule that “does not control a federal trade-secret claim.” It likewise reaffirmed that, for a DTSA plaintiff, the sufficient identification of a trade secret is a “merits” issue — not a pleading issue — that should “usually” be decided at summary judgment or trial.

This decision provides flexibility at the pleading stage in the Ninth Circuit for claims brought under the DTSA.

The Fourth Circuit’s Sysco Machinery Decision

In Sysco Machinery Corp. v. DCS USA Corp., 143 F. 4th 222 (4th Cir. 2025), the Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a trade secret complaint at the pleading stage for failure to identify the alleged trade secrets with “sufficient particularity.” The court held that a plaintiff must sufficiently identify its trade secrets at the pleading stage, and that attaching technical drawings previously deposited with the US Copyright Office (thus publicly disclosed) undermined any claim of secrecy.

Unlike the Ninth Circuit, the Fourth Circuit requires a sufficiently particular identification of alleged trade secrets from the outset of litigation.

Key Takeaways for Future Cases

Although there may be jurisdictional differences as to when a plaintiff must sufficiently identify its trade secrets, recent federal appellate decisions confirm that the identification of trade secrets is a key issue that will receive close scrutiny at various procedural stages, including post-trial proceedings.

Key practice points include:

• Define Early and Precisely. Even if not required at the pleading stage, courts will ultimately require a trade secret plaintiff to sufficiently identify its trade secrets in a way that allows the fact finder to evaluate whether the information is, in fact, a trade secret.
• Avoid High-Level Generalities. Describing “categories” of documents or broad functional areas of information is unlikely to suffice, particularly at summary judgment or post-trial review.
• Understand the Procedural Posture. The timing and rigor of identification requirements may vary by jurisdiction, but appellate courts are consistently enforcing statutory elements at summary judgment and after trial.