Welcome to WilmerHale’s bulletin on recent trade secret case law and relevant news items. We’ve affectionately nicknamed it “Readily Ascertainable” because, unlike a trade secret, it should be easy to figure out. If you have any questions about these cases or the legal issues they implicate, our trade secret experts would be delighted to answer them.
This month, we cover decisions affirming a large verdict for trade secret misappropriation, upholding a ruling that passwords are not trade secrets, holding that a trade secret case should go forward in Israel rather than in the United States, and concluding that the filing of a patent application can be protected activity under California’s anti-SLAPP law.
Propel Fuels Inc. v. Phillips 66 Co. Inc., No. 22CV007179 (Cal. Super. Ct. Oct. 20, 2025)
California trial court keeps in place $805 million trade secret verdict against Phillips 66.
In the latest development in Propel Fuel’s trade secrets case against Phillips 66—which we covered in our October 2024 and July 2025 newsletters—a California state court judge denied Phillips 66’s motion for a new trial and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The order, which keeps in place a jury verdict for Propel Fuels of $605 million plus an additional $200 million award of exemplary damages by the judge, held that the jury’s findings—including a finding of malicious misconduct by Phillips 66—were well supported by the evidence. The order noted that the verdict form had required the jury to make an individualized determination for each of the 88 trade secrets at issue, and emphasized the substantial evidence in the record.
NRA Group LLC v. Durenleau et al., 154 F.4th 153 (3d Cir. 2025)
Third Circuit affirms ruling that passwords are not trade secrets.
A Third Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s holding that passwords do not constitute trade secrets. The district court had ruled that NRA’s former employees had not violated the Defend Trade Secrets Act or the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act when one employee accessed the other employee’s work computer with her permission and used her credentials, reasoning that “it is what the passwords protect, not the passwords, that is valuable.” On appeal, NRA Group argued that the district court decision was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Van Buren, 593 US 374 (2021), which held someone ‘“exceeds authorized access’ when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer — such as files, folders, or databases — that are off-limits to him.” The Third Circuit disagreed that Van Buren applied, reasoning that “the Van Buren Court cautioned that a mere violation of a workplace computer-use policy should not create a claim under the CFAA, as doing so ‘would attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity.’”
OSR Enterprises AG et al. v. Ree Automotive Ltd. et al., No. 24-50779, 2025 WL 2888000 (5th Cir. Oct. 10. 2025)
Fifth Circuit affirms decision that Israel, not the United States, is the appropriate forum for $8 billion trade secrets case between two electric vehicle companies.
A OSR sued Ree Automotive, claiming that Ree poached nine employees who allegedly took confidential information, such as design schematics and market research. OSR alleged that the information allowed Ree to go from a wheelchair maker to an electric vehicle company competing with OSR. The district court dismissed the case on forum non conveniens grounds, reasoning that both parties and most relevant witnesses resided in Israel.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that OSR had not overcome the presumption that Israel was an adequate forum. In so ruling, the Fifth Circuit rejected OSR’s arguments that Israeli law does not allow for extraterritorial injunctions and that the alleged misappropriation primarily happened in the U.S.
IQE PLC v. Newport Fab LLC et al., No. 24-1124, 2025 WL 2922441 (Fed Cir. Oct. 15, 2025)
Federal Circuit vacates California district court’s denial of anti-SLAPP motion in trade secrets case.
IQE PLC sued Tower Conduct Ltd. and other defendants (“the Tower defendants”), accusing them inter alia of stealing trade secrets acquired while the parties had been contemplating a potential collaboration under the protection of a non-disclosure agreement. The Tower Defendants moved to strike the trade secret misappropriation claim (along with an intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim) under California’s anti-SLAPP law. The district court denied the motion, and the Tower Defendants appealed.
The Federal Circuit addressed both whether the denial of the motion was immediately appealable and whether the trade secret misappropriation claim was based on the Tower defendants’ acts in furtherance of their constitutional rights of petition—namely, the filing of a patent application. The court held that it had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. With respect to the second question, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court should have made a two-step inquiry: 1) whether filing the patent application was protected activity; and 2) whether IQE had a probability of winning on its trade secret misappropriation claim. The Federal Circuit held that “IQE may be able to prove that Tower’s patent filing is outside the scope of the protected right to file a patent application if it can prove Tower, in fact, misappropriated a trade secret,” but that the district court had to address the two questions separately.
