Readily Ascertainable - WilmerHale's Trade Secret Bulletin: January and February 2026

Why It Matters

Accurate claim framing and proper damages calculations are now essential to avoid dismissal and costly sanctions, influencing how businesses safeguard and enforce trade secrets across jurisdictions.

Key Takeaways

• Federal Circuit demands detailed, specific trade‑secret definitions
• Fifth Circuit requires damages tied to each proven secret
• Seventh Circuit rejects vague functional software descriptions
• Wisconsin court imposes Rule 11 sanctions for baseless DTSA suits
• DTSA discovery rule and NY accrual create differing limitation clocks

Pulse Analysis

Recent appellate rulings underscore a tightening of trade‑secret pleading standards. The Federal Circuit’s decision in Applied Predictive Technologies highlighted that high‑level, generic descriptions no longer satisfy the DTSA’s definition, forcing plaintiffs to isolate concrete elements—such as algorithms, source code, or unique processes—to survive summary judgment. Similarly, the Seventh Circuit’s dismissal of NEXT Payment’s claim reinforced that functional language alone cannot establish secrecy; courts expect a clear demarcation between publicly known functionality and truly protected technical implementations.

Damages calculations have also come under scrutiny. The Fifth Circuit’s affirmation in Trinseo Europe clarified that courts will not accept bundled damage awards when only a subset of alleged secrets is proven misappropriated. Plaintiffs must therefore conduct granular valuation of each secret, mirroring patent‑law practices, to meet the statutory requirement that compensation reflect the specific value derived from the defendant’s wrongful use. This shift pushes companies to maintain detailed internal records of each trade secret’s economic contribution, facilitating precise apportionment if litigation arises.

Procedural nuances further complicate trade‑secret enforcement. The Delaware district court’s analysis of Deloitte’s claim illustrated divergent limitation periods: the DTSA’s discovery rule starts when the plaintiff knows of the misappropriation, whereas New York law triggers accrual upon the defendant’s first use or disclosure, with distinct timeframes for damages versus equitable relief. Coupled with Wisconsin’s Rule 11 sanction against Allstate for speculative allegations, litigants now face heightened risks for filing unfounded suits. Firms should therefore invest in robust data‑governance, conduct timely investigations, and craft meticulously detailed pleadings to navigate the evolving legal landscape effectively.