Trade Secret Protection Act: Trade Secret Disclosure

The complainant asserted that the client copied proprietary files stored on a company workstation and transferred them to an external device. 

Our investigation showed that the complainant filed the accusation immediately after receiving an unfavorable development in the equity litigation. 

This timing supported the argument that the criminal complaint aimed to influence the civil dispute rather than protect legitimate trade secrets.

We demonstrated that none of the acts described met the threshold of misappropriation contemplated under the Trade Secret Protection Act, particularly because the complainant failed to identify any confidential corporate information that originated from a company system.

A crucial issue was establishing whether the technology qualified as a company asset at all. 

Incorporation documents and founder agreements showed that all intellectual property rights associated with the technology were owned fully by the client at the time the company was established. 

This documentation confirmed that the client granted usage rights to the company but did not transfer ownership.

Because trade secret charges require proof that the information belongs to the alleged victim, the ownership evidence eliminated the foundation of the accusation.

Through forensic review, investigators found no trace of external storage devices being connected to the company computer at the times alleged. 

There were no system logs, shadow copies, USB traces, or deleted-file artifacts indicating that the client ever extracted data.
 

This absence of technical evidence directly contradicted the complainant’s statements, showing that the allegations lacked factual basis under any standard, including those used in Trade Secret Protection Act litigation.

Interviews and device analyses confirmed that the client maintained the technology exclusively on a personal USB device long before joining the venture. 

The files had never been uploaded to company hardware. 

Because the material originated on the client’s personal equipment, the complainant’s claim that the client removed assets from company property was provably false.
 

This clarification was essential in reinforcing that the dispute belonged in civil equity proceedings, not criminal court.

The complainant argued that the client acted against the company’s interests by “retaining trade secrets for personal use.” 

However, because the technology belonged solely to the client, retaining it could not constitute breach of duty, misappropriation, or obstruction.

Our analysis showed that the termination was not based on misconduct but on the complainant’s desire to weaken the client’s position in the equity case.

The complainant attempted to frame the client’s conduct as potential business interference or breach of fiduciary duty. 

However, these theories require use of company assets or authority in a harmful manner. 

Since the intellectual property was not a company asset, these theories failed as a matter of law.
 

This clarification helped ensure investigators did not expand the case beyond the initial unfounded accusation.