Reasonable Measures

 In this episode Tim and Chris unpack the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine, a century old trade secret rule that began in 1902 when a sugar refinery worker was blocked from joining a competitor. They explain how the doctrine works, the three factors courts consider, and how it is used to prevent potential misuse of trade secrets before any misappropriation occurs. The conversation explores how different states treat the doctrine, reviews the landmark PepsiCo v Redmond case, and looks at how its use has shifted from senior executives to highly skilled engineers, especially in the AI industry. As noncompete agreements face bans and tighter restrictions across the United States, the doctrine is becoming a more important tool for protecting valuable trade secrets.

Summary

In this conversation, Tim and Chris examine how artificial intelligence is reshaping the landscape of intellectual property, particularly in patent law and trade secret strategy. They explore the concept of FOSITA (person of ordinary skill in the art) and how AI’s growing capabilities challenge traditional notions of inventorship, obviousness, and enablement. As AI increasingly assists or even drives innovation, they highlight the critical importance of clearly documenting the human role in the inventive process to safeguard patent validity. The discussion also addresses the rising risk of trade secrets becoming readily ascertainable in an AI-driven world, emphasizing the need for a more integrated, system-level approach to defining and protecting proprietary knowledge.

Takeaways:

• AI is making it harder to define who the true inventor is.

• Including a human name on a patent may not be enough to ensure validity.

• The standard for what’s “obvious” in patent law is rising due to AI tools.

• Documenting the human contribution is critical for defensible patents.

• AI may make trade secrets easier to reverse-engineer or infer.
  

• Discrete trade secrets are more vulnerable—system-level knowledge is harder to replicate.

• Companies need to rethink how they structure and protect IP in an AI-driven world.

• Both patents and trade secrets are under pressure from rapid AI advances.
  

In this episode of Reasonable Measures, Tim and Chris explore how artificial intelligence (AI) is colliding with intellectual property (IP) law, particularly focusing on copyrights, patents, and trade secrets. They highlight legal challenges around whether AI can be considered an “inventor” or “author,” and revisit the well-known “monkey selfie” case as a precedent for non-human creations. As AI-generated outputs become more sophisticated, traditional IP frameworks are being tested. The conversation also touches on the value of trade secrets in protecting AI models, especially when patents are either too slow or publicly revealing.

In this episode of the Reasonable Measures podcast, Tim and Chris return after a busy start to the year to dive into a landmark trade secret case: Phillips 66 v. Propel Fuels. They unpack how Propel secured a $604.9 million judgment—later tripled to a staggering $1.8 billion—due to willful and malicious trade secret misappropriation. The discussion highlights key risk mitigation strategies for companies navigating M&A due diligence and the evolving perception of trade secrets as a core intellectual property strategy. Tim and Chris also share insights from recent conferences and industry conversations, emphasizing how more organizations are proactively managing trade secret protection and governance.

Takeaways:

• Massive trade secret verdicts are becoming more common. The Propel Fuels case reached nearly $2 billion, reinforcing the financial and legal consequences of misappropriation.

• Enhanced damages signal the importance of due diligence. Courts will punish companies that exploit trade secret information obtained during M&A discussions.

• Particularity matters. Propel protected itself by clearly defining 88 trade secrets, demonstrating best practices in trade secret identification and governance.

• Trade secret strategy is maturing. Companies are shifting from reactive protection to proactive trade secret management, recognizing it as a critical IP asset.

• Conferences reflect a changing IP landscape. Industry professionals are no longer debating whether to protect trade secrets but rather how to implement strong governance frameworks.

• M&A due diligence requires caution. Companies must assume deals may not close and plan accordingly to prevent intellectual property exposure.

In this episode of the Reasonable Measures podcast, Tim and Chris discuss three notable trade secret cases from Latvia, China, and the United States. They explore the implications of whistleblower retaliation, the intersection of trade secrets and criminal law, and the complexities of ongoing litigation between IQVIA and Viva Systems. The conversation highlights the evolving landscape of trade secret protection and the legal challenges faced by companies and individuals.

The most frequently litigated cases don't have to be the most boring. Discover why customer lists are the most litigated trade secrets in this episode with Tim and Chris. They break down  recent cases to highlight common mistakes and offer strategies for robust protection. Tune in for a mix of humor and insights that will help you keep your trade secrets safe from personal emails.

In this Episode of Reasonable Measures, Chris Buntel and Tim Londergan discuss the recent legal case of Prysmian v. Sterlite, where an executive packaged up a business and walked across the street. This is a fascinating if not all-too-familiar tale of corporate theft. The discussion highlights the evolving understanding of trade secrets in the context of international business and the importance of proper documentation and confidentiality practices.

Takeaways

The Prysmian vs. Sterlite case underscores the significance of trade secrets in corporate strategy.

Misappropriation of trade secrets can lead to substantial financial repercussions for companies.

The definition of trade secrets may need to evolve to reflect current legal standards.

NDAs should be specific and detailed to effectively protect trade secrets.

The case illustrates the complexities of jurisdiction in international trade secret disputes.

Business trade secrets can be as valuable as technical trade secrets.

The timeline of filing complaints in trade secret cases can vary significantly.

Emails often serve as critical evidence in trade secret litigation.

Companies must implement best practices to safeguard their confidential information.

The Prysmian case reflects a growing trend of high-stakes trade secret litigation.

Motorola Solutions v. Hytera Communications sets a nice precedent. In this episode of Reasonable Measures, Tim and Chris discuss the significant legal case involving Motorola Solutions and Hytera, focusing on trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement. They explore the background of the case, the evidence of misconduct, the appeal process, and the implications of the court's decisions on damages and permanent injunctions. The conversation highlights the complexities of international law and jurisdiction in trade secret cases, emphasizing the importance of protecting intellectual property in a global context.

Takeaways

This is a high-stakes trade secret misappropriation case.

The case involves high-value walkie talkies used by emergency services.

Evidence of misconduct included mistakes in code and documents with logos.

The appeal focused on minimizing damages and jurisdictional arguments.

Trade secret laws allow for global damages calculations.

The court affirmed a significant damages award for trade secret theft.

Permanent injunctions can prevent companies from using stolen trade secrets.

The case sets a precedent for international trade secret protection.

Jurisdictional challenges arise with global operations and mirrored servers.

Future implications for multinational companies are significant.

Tim and Chris discuss the reversal and remand of the Appian Pegasystems case, which involved a $2 billion damages award. The original case gained attention for its massive damage award and the systematic theft of trade secrets by Pegasystems. The reversal and remand were based on issues of evidence and causation, with the damages calculation not accurately connecting to the trade secrets. The case is still ongoing, with an appeal of the appeal and the possibility of a new trial. The episode also mentions the use of insurance policies to protect against damages and the potential for refiling the case under the DTSA.

Summary

In this episode, Tim and Chris discuss a recent trade secret misappropriation case in China, which resulted in a record-breaking judgment of 640 million RMB (about 88 million USD). They highlight the significance of this case in recognizing the value of trade secrets and protecting companies from misappropriation. The case involved a wholesale movement of 40 employees from one Chinese electric vehicle company to another, resulting in the filing of 12 patent applications by the new company. The court considered factors such as the quick release of products and the publication of patents to establish the misappropriation of trade secrets. The discussion also touches on the challenges of enforcing judgments and the evolving legal landscape in China.

Takeaways

The recent trade secret misappropriation case in China resulted in a record-breaking judgment of 640 million RMB, highlighting the increasing recognition of the value of trade secrets in the country.

The case involved a wholesale movement of 40 employees from one Chinese electric vehicle company to another, leading to the filing of 12 patent applications by the new company.

Factors such as the quick release of products and the publication of patents were considered by the court as evidence of trade secret misappropriation.

Enforcing judgments and recovering damages in trade secret cases can be challenging, and it remains to be seen how the awarded damages will be paid in this case.

The evolving legal landscape in China demonstrates the country's commitment to improving its IP protection and legal system, driven by domestic companies' need for protection from both domestic and international competitors.