Federal courts split on trade secret identification requirements under the DTSA

The timing of trade secret identification has become a contested and often unsettled issue in federal trade secret litigation.

In 2025, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit issued appellate decisions creating a split over when a plaintiff must specifically define their alleged trade secrets to bring a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).

This Circuit split is likely to shape the viability of trade secret misappropriation claims and impact the procedural trajectory of trade secret litigation strategy, from initial pleadings through discovery and trial.

In this alert, we provide brief summaries of each case and their implications for litigants.

The Fourth Circuit: Sysco v. DCS

In Sysco Machinery Corp. v. DCS USA Corp., 143 F.4th 222, the Fourth Circuit adopted a strict approach, requiring plaintiffs at the pleading stage to allege their trade secrets with sufficient particularity. The particularity is needed so that courts can make an early assessment of the plausibility of the claim, including whether the information is secret and has independent economic value, as required by the DTSA. Without sufficient detail, a plaintiff’s claim is at risk of dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Ninth Circuit: Quintara v. Ruifeng

In contrast, the Ninth Circuit made it clear in Quintara Biosciences v. Ruifeng Biztech, 23-16093, that it does not impose a strict requirement of early definition at the beginning of the case, instead allowing general allegations at the pleading stage – with the expectation that the trade secrets will be clarified as the case progresses, particularly during discovery. It held that the DTSA does not require early particularized disclosure, and whether a plaintiff has adequately identified a trade secret is a factual question typically resolved on summary judgment or at trial.

Conclusion

This Circuit split over the timing of when a plaintiff is required to identify with particularity its asserted trade secret is likely to have significant consequences for litigants. The lack of a uniform standard on this important element of a federal cause of action is likely to greatly affect the viability of claims, scope of discovery, procedural strategy, and, ultimately, the outcome of litigation. If the Circuit split continues – and widens as courts within these Circuits and around the country apply these inconsistent approaches – the need for harmonization through legislation or intervention of the US Supreme Court may be desirable, if not entirely necessary.

For more information, please contact the author.