The Ninth Circuit's August 12, 2025 decision in Quintara Biosciences v. Ruifeng Biztech holds that the Defend Trade Secrets Act contains no pre-discovery "reasonable particularity" identification requirement. The court reversed a district court order that struck nine of eleven trade secrets before discovery began. The decision endorses an iterative approach to identifying trade secrets during litigation. The court also stated, relying on prior dicta, that particularity is a fact question suitable for resolution on summary judgment or at trial. Treating particularity as a jury question introduces new procedural uncertainty because the DTSA contains no such statutory element.
The Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Quintara Biosciences v. Ruifeng Biztech rejects importing California's pre-discovery "reasonable particularity" rule into the Defend Trade Secrets Act, reaffirming that federal law imposes no such up-front requirement. But while Quintara endorses an iterative identification process, it also embraces a problematic notion - that "reasonable particularity" is a fact question for the jury - creating new uncertainty for courts and litigants managing DTSA cases.
While California state law requires trade secret identification with "reasonable particularity" before discovery begins, no such obligation exists in the text of the DTSA. Thus, Quintara correctly reversed the district court's determination to strike nine of eleven trade secrets from the case before discovery had begun.
Collection
[
|
...
]