In federal trade secret litigation, the timing for defining a trade secret has become a frequently disputed and long-unresolved issue. In 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit respectively issued appellate rulings, creating a circuit split regarding the time limit by which a plaintiff must specifically define its claimed trade secrets when filing a lawsuit under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).

This circuit split may determine the viability of trade secret misappropriation claims and influence the procedural direction of the entire trade secret litigation strategy, from the initial complaint to discovery and trial.

In this legal brief, we will briefly outline each case and its impact on litigants.

The Fourth Circuit: In Sysco Machinery Corp. v. DCS Corp. (Case No. 143 F.4th 222), the Fourth Circuit adopted a strict scrutiny standard, requiring plaintiffs to set forth their claimed trade secrets with sufficiently specific detail at the pleading stage. This requirement for specificity is necessary to facilitate the court's early review and assessment of the plausibility of the claims, including determining whether the relevant information meets the requirements of secrecy and independent economic value as prescribed by the DTSA. If a plaintiff's statement lacks sufficient detail, their claims face the risk of dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Ninth Circuit: In Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech Inc. (Case No. 23-16093), the court explicitly stated that it does not require a strict definition of trade secrets in the early stages of a case, allowing plaintiffs to make only general claims at the pleading stage and gradually clarify the scope of the trade secrets as the case progresses, particularly during the discovery process. The court held that the DTSA does not require plaintiffs to provide specific disclosures early in the litigation; whether a plaintiff has sufficiently defined a trade secret is a question of fact that should typically be determined through summary judgment or trial.

Conclusion 

The split among the circuit courts of appeals on the issue of when a plaintiff must specifically identify its claimed trade secrets is likely to have a significant impact on litigants. The lack of a uniform standard for this important element of a federal cause of action is likely to have a major impact on the viability of claims, the scope of discovery, procedural strategies, and ultimate litigation outcomes. If the divergence between the circuit courts persists—and further expands as these circuits and courts across the country adopt these inconsistent practices—then achieving uniformity through legislation or intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court may be desirable, or even entirely necessary.