How Specifically Must You Describe Your Trade Secret in a Complaint? In This Circuit, Nobody Knows.
The short answer
Two federal appellate decisions within two months pulled in different directions on what a trade secret plaintiff must plead. One held that a confidentiality agreement alone can establish reasonable measures to protect a secret. The other dismissed a case for failing to identify the trade secrets with reasonable particularity. The Eleventh Circuit has issued no published trade secret decision in the past year, which means the judges of the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida are choosing among out of circuit approaches case by case. That uncertainty is the most important practical fact in Florida trade secret litigation right now.
Why it comes up
Every trade secret case begins with a dilemma that has no clean answer. To state a claim, the plaintiff must describe what was taken. To describe what was taken is to disclose it, in a public filing, to the defendant who allegedly took it. Plead too generally and the case is dismissed. Plead too specifically and the plaintiff has published the thing it is suing to protect.
The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act both require the plaintiff to show the information derives value from not being generally known and was the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. How much of that must appear in the complaint is the question.
What the two decisions held
The Fourth Circuit, on November 18, 2025, held in a published decision that at the pleading stage a confidentiality agreement alone can constitute reasonable measures under the federal statute. The court declined to impose any requirement to plead more, and emphasized that reasonableness is context dependent and ordinarily a jury question.
The Seventh Circuit, in January 2026, held in a published decision that the plaintiff had failed to identify its trade secrets with reasonable particularity, and affirmed dismissal on that basis.
These are not squarely in conflict. One concerns reasonable measures, the other concerns identification. But they reflect meaningfully different judicial temperaments about how much work a trade secret complaint must do, and a district judge deciding a motion to dismiss in Miami can reach for either.
Our take: the gap is the opportunity, on both sides
If you are the plaintiff, decide the disclosure question before you draft, not while you draft. The options are a complaint that describes categories with enough specificity to survive dismissal while reserving the details for a protective order, a complaint filed under seal in part, or a state court action where the pleading standard may differ. What does not work is a complaint that recites the statutory elements and describes the secret as confidential business information, and that is what a great many complaints do.
Note also the Fourth Circuit's point about the confidentiality agreement, because it is actionable in advance. A company with executed non-disclosure agreements, confidentiality provisions in employment agreements, and documented access restrictions has a materially easier pleading burden than one that relied on informal practice. That work is done before the dispute, not during it.
If you are the defendant, an identification challenge is the cheapest early exit available in a Florida trade secret case, and the absence of controlling circuit authority means the motion is genuinely open rather than foreclosed. It is also strategically valuable even when it fails, because it forces the plaintiff to commit early to a definition of the secret, which constrains the case through discovery and trial.
If you are a referring lawyer, this is exactly the kind of unsettled question that justifies bringing in counsel who litigates these cases, early, before the complaint is filed and the disclosure decision is made irreversibly.
We would be candid that the absence of Eleventh Circuit authority cuts against certainty for everyone. A published decision could come at any time and could adopt either approach.
When to call a lawyer
Before filing a trade secret complaint, and before responding to one. The pleading decision is the case.
Why this is not a do-it-yourself problem
This is the clearest example in commercial litigation of a decision that cannot be unmade. What a complaint says about the secret is public the moment it is filed, it defines the case through trial, and there is no controlling authority in this circuit telling anyone how much is enough. Getting that judgment right requires someone who has litigated these motions and knows how the judges in this district have actually ruled, because the published law does not answer it. A complaint drafted without that judgment either discloses too much or gets dismissed.
Talk to us
Trade secret litigation is a core part of this firm's practice, and we have represented both companies and individuals in these disputes. If you are considering bringing a trade secret claim, or you have been served with one, discuss your matter with our attorneys before the pleading decisions are made.
Sources
● Samuel Sherbrooke Corporate, Ltd. v. Mayer (4th Cir. Nov. 18, 2025), via CourtListener
● NEXT Payment Solutions, Inc. v. CLEAResult Consulting, Inc. (7th Cir. Jan. 2026), via CourtListener
Disclaimer
This post discusses publicly reported legal developments for general informational purposes. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney client relationship, and it does not reflect the firm's position in any pending matter. Outcomes depend on the specific facts and the governing law of the relevant jurisdiction.