FORT LAUDERDALE BUSINESS LITIGATION: ALLEGING TRADE SECRETS WITH SPECIFICITY
Federal law defines a trade secret as “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information” that the owner “has taken reasonable measures to keep… secret; and… “derives independent economic value… from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information.” To bring a trade secret lawsuit in federal court, the plaintiff must demonstrate it possesses a trade secret satisfying the definition above. However, formulating the requisite allegations to satisfy the definition can be difficult. Allege too much, and the plaintiff risks destruction of its trade by publicizing the secret. Withhold too much, and the plaintiff risks dismissal of its lawsuit. This article explores the fine line between the two. The Fort Lauderdale business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.
Case law can require a high level of specificity when a plaintiff makes a claim for misappropriation of a trade secret. REXA, Inc. v. Chester, 42 F.4th 652 (7th Cir. 2022). “A plaintiff must show concrete secrets rather than broad areas of technology.” NEXT Payment Sols., Inc. v. CLEAResult Consulting, Inc., 163 F.4th 1091 (7th Cir. 2026). Whether the plaintiff provided the requisite level of detail depends on the circumstances of each case. At the least, a plaintiff must present enough specifics for the fact finder to distinguish between information that is generally known and information that is not readily ascertainable, and thus qualifies as a statutory secret. IDX Sys. Corp. v. Epic Sys. Corp., 285 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2002) (“[A] plaintiff must do more than just identify a kind of technology and then invite the court to hunt through the details in search of items meeting the statutory definition.”).
NEXT Payment Sols., Inc. v. CLEAResult Consulting, Inc., 163 F.4th 1091 (7th Cir. 2026) provides an interesting case study on this pleading requirement because it involved a complicated multifaceted software. The plaintiff identified the existence of thirty-four software modules and five combination modules of its FAST Tool program as its trade secret in the complaint. The plaintiff provided a title and description of the module features and identified the secret of its software program that makes each module work. However, the allegations were insufficient because the descriptions used generic functional verbiage that described the process in circular terms. In short, the plaintiff only disclosed the end result of what its software does. The plaintiff did not disclose how the software produced the result due to vague and generic descriptions. The plaintiff’s failure to allege its trade secrets with sufficient particularity made it impossible for the court to distinguish between aspects of the plaintiff’s software that are generally known and ascertainable versus those which the plaintiff contended to be secret. The court dismissed the complaint as a result because “it is not a trade secret for a software program to manage appointment inventory, schedule appointments, collect and display data, send notifications, or fill out PDFs.” Anyone using the software performed these tasks.
The specificity requirement would likely apply in a restrictive covenant lawsuit based on a non-disclosure provision, non-compete provision, or non-solicitation provision that is supported by a trade secret. The plaintiff would likely have to plead the existence of its trade secret with the requisite specificity just like it would in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit to survive dismissal.
The Fort Lauderdale business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.