California Trade Secret Attorney

About the author: Scott Lesowitz is a 2007 Harvard Law School graduate and former Assistant United States Attorney whose civil litigation practice is based in Southern California. Scott is a founding partner of Lesowitz Gebelin LLP. Scott lives in San Diego with his wife, three children, and bernedoodle. Scott represents clients throughout California, including San Diego, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties.

Trade secret disputes often arise when a former employee, business partner, or competitor takes confidential business information and uses it for unfair advantage. My firm represents plaintiffs and defendants in California trade secret misappropriation litigation, including cases involving allegations of stolen customer lists, proprietary software, confidential business processes, and unfair competition.

If you are facing a trade secret dispute—whether as a business seeking to protect confidential information or as an individual accused of misappropriation—you should speak with counsel early. For victims of trade secret misappropriation, acting quickly and competently is crucial for quickly obtaining a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against continued misappropriation. For those alleged to have committed trade secret misappropriation, you may be forced to litigate against an application for a temporary restraining order against you within a matter of days of the plaintiff suing you.

We have obtained preliminary injunctions for clients, and we have defeated applications for preliminary injunctions for clients. We have actual trade secret misappropriation trial experience. We represent clients throughout all stages of trade secret disputes.

Below is a brief overview of trade secret law and trade secret litigation in California. This is not a complete overview, and this is in no way a substitute for personal legal advice from an attorney.

What Qualifies as a Trade Secret Under California Law

Not all confidential and proprietary information constitutes a legally protectable trade secret. Generally, the information must have economic value from not being generally known. Additionally, reasonable efforts must be made to protect the secrecy of the information.

Types of Information that May Qualify as a Trade Secret

A broad scope of information may constitute a trade secret, including “a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process.”

A customer list and customer information may constitute a protectible trade secret if the information is sufficiently difficult to compile and valuable.

Regarding former employees, general skills and experience learned during employment generally will not constitute trade secrets.

[Sources: California Civil Code § 3426.1; Perry v. Stuart, 111 Cal.App.5th 472 (2025); Morlife, Inc. v. Perry, 56 Cal.App.4th 1514 (1997); Courtesy Temporary Service, Inc. v. Camacho, 222 Cal.App.3d 1278 (1990); Whitted v. Williams, 226 Cal.App.2d 52 (1964).]

Reasonable Efforts Required to Maintain Secrecy

Unsurprisingly, to be a trade secret, the information must not be “generally known” either in the general public or in the relevant area of business or industry, and the information must not be “readily ascertainable.” Also, the holder of the information must use reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. If one could, through reasonable and proper efforts, reconstruct or reverse engineer the information, program, or process, it would be “readily ascertainable.”

The law does not require complete secrecy. This would be impractical, as often people such as employees, vendors, and potential investors need access to the confidential information. The general principle is that secrecy is maintained when the person who views or receives the trade secret knew or should have known of an expectation of confidentiality. A common method to ensure that secrecy is maintained is to use confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements.

That said, the lack of a confidentiality or nondisclosure agreement does not automatically end the status as a trade secret. Depending on the context, it may suffice that the recipient was told that the information is a trade secret, that documents were marked as “Confidential,” or that other factors are present that make the expectation of confidentiality obvious.

[Sources: California Civil Code § 3426.1; Brescia v. Angelin, 172 Cal.App.4th 133 (2009); Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 923 F.Supp. 1231 (N.D. Cal. 1995); American Paper & Packaging Products, Inc. v. Kirgan, 183 Cal.App.3d 1318 (1986).]

Economic Value Requirements for Trade Secrets

Additionally, to be a trade secret, the information must have actual or potential economic value from not being generally known. Information, systems, and the like that are fairly obvious and add negligibly to what others know or could learn with reasonable efforts are not trade secrets. Evidence that developing the trade secret took significant time or expense may suffice to demonstrate economic value.

[Sources: California Civil Code § 3426.1; Perry v. Stuart, 111 Cal.App.5th 472 (2025); Capitol Records, LLC v. BlueBeat, Inc., 765 F.Supp.2d 1198 (C.D. Cal. 2010); Self Directed Placement Corp. v. Control Data Corp., 908 F.2d 462, 465-66 (9th Cir. 1990).]

Elements of a Trade Secret Misappropriation Claim in California

If the information, program, process, etc., qualifies as a trade secret, the trade secret holder may sue those who commit “misappropriation.” Misappropriation includes acquiring a trade secret through improper means, disclosing a trade secret, and using a trade secret. However, reverse engineering by itself is not inherently an improper means of acquiring a trade secret.

To be found liable in a lawsuit for disclosing or using a trade secret, the defendant must have known or have had reason to know that the information was a trade secret.

The mere fact that a former employee possesses a trade secret without additional evidence that the trade secret will be misused or disclosed is insufficient to obtain court intervention. California law is especially protective of the rights of employees to compete against their former employers. Except for narrow exceptions related to the sale or dissolution of a business or divorce, agreements that an employee will not compete against the employer post-employment are categorically invalid. This is true even if the restrictions are of a very limited scope. See California Business and Professions Code § 16600.

[Sources: Cal.Civ.Code § 3426.1; Hooked Media Group, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 55 Cal.App.5th 323 (2020); Pellerin v. Honeywell Intern., Inc., 877 F.Supp.2d 983 (S.D. Cal. 2012); Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Superior Court, 163 Cal.App.4th 575 (2008); PMC, Inc. v. Kadisha, 78 Cal.App.4th 1368 (2000).]

Injunctions, Damages, and Attorneys’ Fees

Temporary Restraining Orders and Injunctions

When a trade secret misappropriation victim can establish that she will suffer irreparable harm from an imminent act of misappropriation or from misappropriation that is ongoing, the victim may be able to quickly receive an order from the court, namely through a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. The order may bar the perpetrator from committing acts of misappropriation or require that the perpetrator perform affirmative acts.

California law is more restrictive than other states in the granting of injunctions against former employees. For more, see my article on the inevitable disclosure doctrine in California.

[Sources: Commure, Inc. v. Canopy Works, Inc., 792 F.Supp.3d 971 (N.D. Cal. 2025); Mattson Technology, Inc. v. Applied Materials, Inc., 96 Cal.App.5th 1149 (2023); Central Valley General Hospital v. Smith, 162 Cal.App.4th 501, 524 (2008); ReadyLink Healthcare v. Cotton, 126 Cal.App.4th 1006 (2005).]

Monetary Damages

In terms of financial compensation, a plaintiff in a trade secret misappropriation case may be entitled to recover the amount of actual damages that the plaintiff suffered. The plaintiff may also be awarded the profits that the defendant earned from the misappropriation. If the plaintiff cannot prove either the amount of damages that it suffered or the amount of profits that the defendant earned, the plaintiff may be awarded the amount of a reasonable royalty. Punitive or exemplary damages may also be available.

[Sources: Cal.Civ.Code § 3426.3; Applied Med. Distribution Corp. v. Jarrells, 100 C.A.5th 556 (2024); Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory, Inc., 226 Cal.App.4th 26, 66-68 (2014).]

The Availability of Attorneys’ Fees

The winning party in a trade secret lawsuit may be able to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for expert witnesses.

For a plaintiff to receive such an award, the misappropriation must have been “willful and malicious.” A defendant must show that the lawsuit was “made in bad faith.”

[Sources: California Civil Code, § 3426.4; Aerotek, Inc. v. Johnson Group Staffing Co., Inc., 54 Cal.App.5th 670 (2020); Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., 236 Cal.App.4th 243 (2015); Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 801 F.Supp.2d 950 (C.D. Cal. 2011); FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Parrish, 174 Cal.App.4th 1270 (2009); Gemini Aluminum Corp. v. California Custom Shapes, Inc., 95 Cal.App.4th 1249 (2002).]

Contact Me

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING – PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE SIMILAR OUTCOMES IN THE FUTURE. YOUR USE OF THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO THIS DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE.