Trade secret misappropriation litigation is often criticized for its negative effects on competition and speech. In particular, some accuse plaintiff trade-secret owners of filing complaints for the purpose of running a competitor out of business, or restraining individuals from discussing matters which are unfavorable to the company. This paper enters the discussion to critically assess whether there is reason to consider restricting these suits or changing the law. The Article concludes that trade secret litigation on the whole does not inappropriately impinge on free speech rights. The fundamental nature of trade secret rights, in particular the underlying proprietary and corporate privacy interests, has implications for how courts and plaintiff trade-secret holders view, interpret, and approach these cases, and ultimately help illustrate why the free speech issues do not pose an overriding concern sufficient to justify restrictions on trade secret litigation. Even if certain cases sometimes come closer to offending defendants' free speech rights, these occasions and concerns are not unique to trade secret law. Instead, they stem from the broader issue of litigation misuse in civil cases, and the other areas of intellectual property litigation suffer from similar problems. Accordingly, any necessary modifications are best addressed in the context of general litigation reform, rather than singling out trade secret cases. Indeed, there are particular reasons not to be overly concerned about trade secret actions because existing litigation safeguards, when properly applied, should minimize the risk of free speech incursions.
Three established torts require the defendant’s behavior to be “offensive” or “highly offensive” in order to be actionable: offensive battery, public...
It has long been said that the common law "works itself pure" But in the law of torts, not always. This Article reveals and analyzes the...
As the knowledge economy expanded and concerns about trade secret misappropriation mounted in the digital age, federal policymakers undertook efforts...
Public nuisance has lived many lives. A centuries-old doctrine defined as an unreasonable interference with a right common to the public, it is...
In 2018 the U.S. government announced that Chinese espionage was occurring in university research labs, and the Department of Justice subsequently...
This paper, prepared for the 2023 Clifford Symposium on “New Torts” at DePaul Law School, addresses the tort of offensive battery. This is an ancient...
The 2022 edition of Selected Intellectual Property, Internet, and Information Law Statutes, Regulations, and Treaties, edited by Professors Sharon K...
The requirement of harm has significantly impeded the enforcement of privacy law. In most tort and contract cases, plaintiffs must establish that they...
This Article, written for the annual Clifford Symposium on Tort Law and Social Policy, chronicles a series of developments in American history that...
For over a decade, a battle has been raging in the trial courts of this country over something called the "reptile theory," often simply referred to...
Tort Law and the Construction of Change studies the interaction of law and social change in American history. Tort law—civil law made by judges, not...
Obtaining or resisting some form of equitable relief is a key component of many trade secret disputes, both at an early stage and following trial on...
This chapter analyzes the extraterritorial provision in the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and considers the arguments on both sides of the question...