Lack of Specificity


You Map v. Snap is another great example of courts requiring a fairly high level of specificity in describing trade secrets.

Six of Defendant’s employees signed up for a beta-test of Plaintiff’s map visualization app.  They used personal email addresses to hide their employment status.  Beta testers had to agree to T&Cs including confidentiality, non-use, non-disclosure, and reverse engineering restrictions.

Plaintiff alleged that the employees accessed the app’s technologies and incorporated them into a competing product.

The complaint repeatedly referred to stolen “technology” such as “technology to visualize stories on a map” or “technology to animate stories on a map”, but did not say what the technologies actually were (such as source code, algorithm, architecture, visual design, and so on).

The trade secret claims were dismissed.