来自 Tangibly 的最新消息

Imagine this: A consultant starts a competing company after taking your proprietary information while under a confidentiality agreement. You promptly file a trade secret misappropriation claim, but can you prove that what he took was a “trade secret”? If not, you could be out of luck, and potentially liable to pay the consultant!

Federal DTSA and Massachusetts UTSA do not clearly define what “willful and malicious” means. Recent litigation in Massachusetts took great steps towards clarifying this issue. KPM Analtics North America sued Blue Sun Scientific, Innovative Technologies Group, and four former employees for trade secret misappropriation under both DTSA and MUTSA.

A recent federal court ruling awarded over $10 million in damages to KPM Analytics, a scientific instrumentation company serving the food and agriculture sectors, in a landmark trade secret misappropriation case. The verdict reinforces the value of protecting intellectual property in industries where technical innovation moves fast and competitive advantages can be lost overnight.

Tangibly, the leading trade secret management platform, proudly announces the launch of Trade Secret 2025 (TS25)—a cutting-edge digital resource designed to revolutionize trade secret knowledge sharing. TS25 combines the latest expertise from academia, legal practice, and business in an intuitive, AI-driven platform powered by a proprietary Large Language Model (LLM) to empower organizations with actionable insights and guidance.

Palantir has filed a trade secret lawsuit against Guardian AI, a healthcare-focused AI startup launched by two of its former employees, in what is shaping up to be one of the most high profile IP disputes of 2025. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and alleges brazen theft of trade secrets used to build and launch Guardian AI while the founders were still employed at Palantir.

Rippling sued their arch-competitor Deel in the Northern District Court of California on March 17, 2025. Rippling claims that Deel used a “mole” within Rippling to obtain valuable confidential information.

Artificial intelligence presents both opportunities and risks for businesses. While it drives innovation and efficiency, it also creates vulnerabilities for intellectual property. Companies invest heavily in proprietary technologies, designs, and processes, only to find that AI systems can expose or replicate these assets. Protecting IP in the AI era requires a proactive strategy that combines legal protections, strict oversight, and employee awareness to prevent AI from becoming a liability.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed the way we create, innovate, and safeguard ideas, but it also introduces intricate questions around intellectual property (IP). The storage and processing of user input by AI models is a central concern. Information uploaded to an AI system, such as text, images, or other data, often becomes incorporated into the model’s memory, either temporarily or permanently. This blurring of lines between user contribution and machine learning challenges traditional IP frameworks. For example, determining ownership rights in AI-generated music based on user input becomes complex. As AI systems advance, legal systems globally are grappling to define ownership and protect creators within this evolving landscape.

This case is another reminder that trade secret risks often stem from inside your own organization. The Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) sued Westrock Coffee and six former DFA employees (who left to join Westrock) in the Western District of Missouri, alleging typical DTSA, MTSA, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, breach of duty of loyalty violations.

There’s a lot of discussion about American...

中国的 DeepSeek R1 和 Janus 开源模型无疑是本周人工智能的风向标。 R1 模型的制造成本约为其竞争对手通常花费的 5%，并承诺以更低的价格采用人工智能。 让我们从几个不同的角度来看看 DeepSeek。

与专利案件相比，我们在Tangibly更喜欢阅读商业秘密案件。 商业秘密通常涉及很多戏剧性的情节--前雇员将皇冠上的宝石转给竞争对手，并购买家拿走尽职调查信息并创办自己的竞争企业，等等。 这通常是一个有趣的故事，有明确的 "好人 "和 "坏人"。

并购（M&A）尽职调查总是涉及机密信息和商业秘密的共享。几乎总会有一份保密协议（NDA），但通常只有一句含糊不清的话，如 "探索 A 公司和 B 公司之间的潜在业务关系"。

Trade secrets are most often taken by an (ex)employee to a competing company or the employee sets up their own competing business.  This theft is, of course, not authorized. But let’s look at the competing company – they basically get a gift from Santa…

如果《商业秘密法》如此神奇，为什么我们仍然看到一些商业秘密案件在州法院而不是联邦法院进行辩论？ 问得好！

确定专利的有效期很容易--从第一个非临时优先权日起 20 年，加上任何延期和调整（假设支付了所有维持费）。

区分机密信息和商业秘密可能会让人感到困惑--它们是不同的，但有些人却错误地交替使用这两个术语。所有商业机密都是保密信息，但并非所有保密信息都是商业机密。这就好比商业机密是机密信息的高级子集。

了解你的商业秘密是什么并将其记录在案是个好主意。 如果你不界定商业秘密资产，就很难知道它们何时被盗，而且根据《统一商业秘密法》，你越来越难甚至不可能对盗取商业秘密的人行使权利。

啊，香水中商业秘密的甜蜜味道......世界上每家公司都有商业秘密，不管他们是否知道（或闻到？

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text] Tangibly...

在本期由知识产权商业学院主持的播客中，我们将与知识产权专家克里斯-邦德（Chris Bundle）一起深入探讨经常被误解的商业秘密世界。了解商业秘密为何不仅仅是机密信息，以及管理商业秘密的复杂性。克里斯解释了商业秘密是 "免费 "的误解，并强调了有效保护商业秘密所需的积极努力。与专利或商标不同，商业秘密没有正式的注册程序，这导致了人们对其管理和成本的普遍误解。敬请收听，了解健全的内部政策、员工培训和安全措施对保护宝贵商业信息的重要性。本集是所有从事知识产权管理的人的必听内容。

一名员工离开 Alifax 公司，加入竞争对手 Alcor 公司。艾利法公司生产用于血液分析的临床仪器。不到一年（非常快！），安科公司就推出了与爱利法公司产品功能相同的竞争仪器。

在最近一起被广泛报道的案件中，西雅图的一个陪审团裁定波音公司应向初创公司 Zunum Aero 赔偿 $72 万美元，原因是该公司窃取了与配备混合电力能源的小型客机有关的商业机密。

我们经常遇到一些人，他们担心任何商业秘密清单或目录都可能不完整，不包含对诉讼至关重要的 "唯一 "有价值的商业秘密。 这些人往往认为，"不做 "总比 "做 "得不完美要好。 这样做的原因是担心商业秘密诉讼中的被告会辩称，既然目录或清单中没有 "那一个"，那么它就不是商业秘密。

2024 年 4 月 23 日，美国联邦贸易委员会发布了一项规则，在美国 50 个州有效禁止大多数非竞争协议。 第二天，美国商会就起诉了联邦贸易委员会，声称联邦贸易委员会超越了其制定规则的权力范围。 这场斗争将引人关注！

经过一段时间对商业秘密案件的研究，我们开始发现一些共同的模式。上周，强生公司向新泽西州联邦法院提起诉讼，指控一名竞争战略总监在离职加入辉瑞公司时下载了数千份文件。该员工自 1999 年以来一直在强生公司工作，最近在负责制定商业战略的战略客户部工作。

增强型 X-Ray 套件现在能够生成与公司商业秘密战略密切相关的专利权利要求。这一发展将彻底改变企业保护和利用其知识资产的方式。Tangibly允许用户直接将发明披露信息输入平台，从而自动执行商业秘密分析并生成专利权利要求草案。这种流程的无缝整合不仅节省了时间，还确保了知识产权战略价值的最大化。