The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court’s decision to strike several trade secret claims in a lawsuit involving DNA sequencing companies. The appellate court determined that the district judge acted prematurely in dismissing these claims for lack of specificity.
Quintara Biosciences Inc. filed a lawsuit against Ruifeng Biztech Inc., alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, including its customer database and marketing plans. The district court had previously struck nine of the eleven trade secret claims, citing insufficient detail in their identification. However, the Ninth Circuit found that the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act does not require the same level of particularity as California state law before discovery. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
This ruling underscores the importance of understanding the nuances between federal and state requirements in trade secret litigation. Legal professionals should note that while California law demands a “reasonable particularity” in identifying trade secrets prior to discovery, the federal statute offers more flexibility, potentially allowing broader claims to proceed to discovery.
For further details on this case, refer to the coverage by Bloomberg Law.