Sedona Conference Publishes Model Jury Instructions on DTSA’s 10th Anniversary

Why It Matters

Uniform DTSA jury instructions give litigants a predictable evidentiary roadmap, lowering litigation costs and encouraging earlier settlements across jurisdictions.

Key Takeaways

• Sedona releases first DTSA model jury instructions after three-year consensus process
• Instructions aim to standardize definitions, misappropriation, and damages across federal courts
• Plaintiffs gain clearer trade‑secret particularity standards; defendants see limits on inevitable disclosure
• Unresolved splits—combination trade secret use and unjust‑enrichment jurisdiction—remain for courts
• Early settlement improves as both sides can gauge trial outcomes more accurately

Pulse Analysis

The Defend Trade Secrets Act, enacted in 2016, quickly became a cornerstone for protecting proprietary information, yet federal courts have lacked a dedicated set of jury instructions. Practitioners have traditionally cobbled together guidance from state statutes, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and ad‑hoc court orders, resulting in inconsistent verdicts and costly instruction battles. This vacuum has hampered both litigation strategy and settlement calculus, as parties struggle to predict how juries will interpret key concepts such as “reasonable measures” or “actual use.”

Sedona’s new model instructions fill that gap with a comprehensive, consensus‑driven framework. Organized around the full life cycle of a DTSA claim, the guidance defines trade‑secret existence with particularity, rejects the speculative “inevitable disclosure” standard for misappropriation, and outlines a nuanced damages schema that includes actual loss, unjust enrichment, and reasonable royalty calculations. By presenting alternative language for contested issues—like the scope of combination trade‑secret use—the model respects existing circuit splits while offering courts a vetted starting point. Its adoption signals a shift toward greater procedural predictability in federal trade‑secret litigation.

For businesses, the practical impact is immediate. Plaintiffs can now articulate trade‑secret claims with clearer specificity, reducing the need to cherry‑pick jurisdictions, while defendants gain a defensible benchmark against which to challenge overly broad instructions. The result is a more level playing field that encourages early case assessments and settlement discussions, potentially trimming months of discovery and expensive trial preparation. Although some doctrinal questions remain unresolved, the Sedona model sets a new industry standard that courts and counsel are likely to reference for years to come.