DTSA

Subscribe to DTSA via RSS

Seyfarth partners Katherine Perrelli and Dallin Wilson co-authored the United States chapter of Lexology Panoramic’s Trade Secrets 2026 Report. The chapter offers a comprehensive overview of trade secret protection in the U.S., highlighting recent legal developments, enforcement trends, and best practices for safeguarding proprietary information.

Among the emerging issues addressed in this year’s report is the growing impact of…

Continue Reading Katherine Perrelli and Dallin Wilson Author 2026 Update to Lexology Panoramic’s Trade Secrets – USA Chapter
Final puzzle piece hovering over position.
Edge2Edge Media, Unsplash

Register Here

Tuesday, July 29, 2025
1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Eastern
12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. Central
11:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. Mountain
10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Pacific

About the Program

Trade secrets are key to a company’s competitive advantage. In this session of our Winning Combinations webinar series, join Seyfarth’s Ken Kanzawa and Robert Terzoli for a…

Continue Reading Webinar – Protecting Trade Secrets in Government Contracting: Risks and Safeguarding Strategies
wesley-tingey-9z9fxr_7Z-k-unsplash (1)

Both the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”) and Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“PUTSA”) provide that a defendant may recover its attorneys’ fees if it demonstrates that a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets is brought in “bad faith.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D); 12 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5305(1). But who decides “bad faith” – a…

Continue Reading Third Circuit Holds that Judge, Not Jury, May Determine “Bad Faith” for Purposes of Fee Shifting Under DTSA and PUTSA
dmitrij-paskevic-YjVa-F9P9kk-unsplash

On May 25, 2023, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. TriZetto Group, Inc., No. 21-1370 (2d Cir. 2023) that provides guidance regarding recoverable damages in trade secret misappropriation disputes under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”).

The Second Circuit held that under the DTSA unjust enrichment damages cannot be awarded for…

Continue Reading Second Circuit Vacates Jury Award on Grounds that Damages Theory Lacked Evidence
massachusetts-trade-secrets-act-four-years-on

This article was originally published in the Boston Bar Association’s Fall 2022 Boston Bar Journal.

Just over four years ago, the Massachusetts legislature finally passed a bill long in the works addressing non-compete agreements and replacing the Commonwealth’s trade secret misappropriation statute with a version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (the “UTSA”), referred to herein as “MUTSA.” See M. G. L. c. 93, § 42-42G. While the Commonwealth’s “new” non-compete law has received the most attention, the adoption of the UTSA was also notable. Even though Massachusetts is the 49th state to adopt the UTSA, MUTSA differs from other states’ versions of the UTSA. This piece will discuss the differences in pre- and post-MUTSA jurisprudence and what issues may be implicated by the law.Continue Reading The Massachusetts Trade Secrets Act, Four Years On: What to know

webinar recap - texas trade secrets and non-competesIn the fifth installment of our 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys Jesse Coleman, Matt Simmons, and Kevin Green discussed legal developments and trends in Texas trade secret and non-compete law and how it is similar to and diverse from other jurisdictions.

As a conclusion to this webinar, we compiled a summary of takeaways:

  • A restrictive covenant is

…
Continue Reading Webinar Recap! How and Why Texas is Different When it Comes to Trade Secrets and Non-Competes

federal restrictive covenant legislationLast week, in connection with a House Oversight hearing, Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation to restrict confidentiality provisions from covering claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The “Accountability for Workplace Misconduct Act,” H.R. 8146, appears to be a federal effort to expedite the state-level trend to exempt discrimination, harassment, and retaliation information from confidentiality restrictions.

Over the last decade, lawmakers at the state and federal level have introduced and passed legislation designed to limit the reach of confidentiality provisions in certain circumstances. Those modifications include:
Continue Reading House Introduces Legislation Restricting Confidentiality Provisions in Settlement Agreements

Robert Milligan, Seyfarth partner and co-chair of the firm’s Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Competes group, and associate Alex Meier recently attended the Sedona Conference on Trade Secrets (Working Group 12) in Denver, Colorado. Working Group 12 seeks to aid judges and practitioners in developing consensus-based guidelines for managing trade secret litigation and protecting trade secrets.
Continue Reading Recap! The Sedona Conference on Trade Secrets (Working Group 12) in Denver

Seyfarth attorneys published in IP LitigatorSeyfarth partner Jesse Coleman and associate Kevin Green authored an IP Litigator article focused on a recent DTSA/TUTSA lawsuit which involved the public disclosure of alleged trade secret in an expired patent. Read the full article from the March / April 2022 edition of IP Litigator here.
Continue Reading Seyfarth Attorneys Author Article on Texas Trade Secret Lawsuit