{"id":517,"date":"2026-07-07T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-07T16:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/?p=517"},"modified":"2026-07-11T20:25:07","modified_gmt":"2026-07-12T00:25:07","slug":"inability-to-identify-trade-secrets-dooms-misappropriation-claim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/?p=517","title":{"rendered":"Inability to Identify Trade Secrets Dooms Misappropriation Claim"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Gompert<\/em>, No. 25-1577 (8th Cir. July 7, 2026), the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Wilbur-Ellis’s former employees, concluding that Wilbur-Ellis failed to adequately identify its trade secrets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wilbur-Ellis must have felt it had a good case. Several of its employees quit in August 2024, and within three days they were working for a competitor while still drawing their salaries from Wilbur-Ellis. A total of eleven employees left. At least two of the departing employees downloaded and accessed files stored on Wilber-Ellis devices during their last weeks of employment. The departing employees reset their devices before returning them to Wilbur-Ellis. Wilbur-Ellis acted without delay, suing two of the employees four days after they left the company alleging breach of the duty of loyalty, misappropriation of trade secrets under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Nebraska Trade Secrets Act (NTSA), and tortious interference with its business relationships, and adding two more employees within two weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When ordered to disclose with specificity the trade secrets that were misappropriated, Wilbur-Ellis produced a six-page document that described its alleged trade secrets with phrases like \u201c[d]ocuments and information regarding Wilbur-Ellis\u2019s business and market strategy,\u201d \u201c[d]ocuments and information relating to Wilbur-Ellis\u2019s customers,\u201d and \u201cnonpublic customer proposals, pricing and rebate data.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court’s observation that that Wilbur-Ellis \u201cpaint[ed] with a broad brush, never clearly and adequately identifying the \u2018trade secrets\u2019 at issue, let alone how they were used or misused or the damages reasonably attributable to each defendant.\u201d The district court also stated that \u201cWilbur-Ellis\u2019s reliance on broad terms, general descriptions, and repeated, non-specific references . . . do not suffice. Without more, much of the information it designates as trade secrets also appears to be public or unprotected.\u201d The Eighth Circuit said that because we agree with the district court\u2019s finding that Wilbur-Ellis \u201cnever clearly and adequately identif[ied] the \u2018trade secrets\u2019 at issue, let alone how they were used or misused,\u201d we hold that it did not err in granting summary judgment on Wilbur-Ellis\u2019s trade secrets claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eliis-Wilbur certainly had trade secrets, and they very well may have been misappropriated. But, like many trade secret owners they simply were not prepared for the level of detail neccessary to adequately identify their trade secrets. Here is a ten-point plan for being prepared to successfully make a trade secret claim:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Maintain a Formal Trade Secret Inventory<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

The single most valuable thing a company can do is maintain a living trade secret inventory. The inventory should identify each trade secret, rather than merely categories of confidential information. For example, instead of “manufacturing process” the inventory should identify “Multi-stage catalytized reduction process for reducing sulfur impurities below 5 ppm using catalyst sequence A-B-C, operating temperatures of 180-195, . . .”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The inventory should include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n