It's common sense that, to protect a trade secret, the
information must remain secret. However, when
trade secret misappropriation claims arise and litigation ensues,
the court and the parties involved need to understand at least the
broad confines of the alleged trade secret. While the Federal
pleading standard for a plaintiff's complaint is the same
regardless of what the trade secret may be—namely, that the
plaintiff include sufficient particularity of the trade
secret's subject matter—what constitutes "sufficient
particularity" will depend on the type of information alleged
to be a trade secret. AlterG, Inc. v. Boost Treadmills
LLC, a recent decision in the Northern District of
California, highlighted this fact when the court found the
plaintiff had adequately pleaded facts to describe one trade
secret, but failed to do so for another.
