Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, TORT CLAIMS—N.D. Ill.: AbbVie’s trade secret claims against Chinese oncology drug developer and former employee proceed, (May 18, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

The complaint plausibly alleged that the Chinese firm recruited a former AbbVie employee to access confidential cancer therapy research and used it to accelerate a competing drug program.

A federal district court in Illinois has allowed AbbVie’s trade secret misappropriation claims against a Chinese oncology-focused drug developer and a former AbbVie senior research scientist to proceed. The court found that the complaint plausibly alleged that the scientist, who had worked on AbbVie’s cancer drug research, was recruited to access confidential information and that it was later used in competing drug development. The court was unpersuaded by arguments that the alleged trade secrets were publicly disclosed, insufficiently protected, or inadequately pleaded, and found that the plaintiff had stated a viable claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (AbbVie Inc. v. BeiGene, Ltd., No. 1:24-cv-08167 (N.D. Ill. May 12, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, AbbVie Inc., is a research-driven pharmaceutical company engaged in developing therapies for serious diseases, including cancer. The defendants include BeiGene Ltd. and its affiliated entities, as well as Huaqing Liu, who previously worked for AbbVie and later joined BeiGene in a senior research role.

AbbVie’s claims centered on its Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) degrader program, a research initiative aimed at developing compounds that target and degrade the BTK protein for cancer treatment. The asserted trade secrets included detailed chemical designs and configurations of BTK degraders, including specific linkers, target-binding ligand (TBL), and E3-ligase-binding ligand (LBL) structures, as well as combinations of these components. In addition to structural designs, AbbVie claimed trade secrets in scientific data and research insights, including how modifications to compound components affect pharmacological performance, as well as strategic information concerning development priorities and research direction. The company alleged that these trade secrets were developed over the years through substantial investment and were not publicly known. AbbVie further asserted that it employed extensive confidentiality measures, including restricted access to sensitive information, internal policies, technological safeguards, and nondisclosure agreements, to protect its proprietary research.

The dispute arose after Liu, who had worked on AbbVie’s BTK degrader program and had access to its confidential research, retired in September 2019 and shortly thereafter joined BeiGene as Executive Director of its chemistry department. AbbVie alleged that BeiGene recruited Liu specifically to obtain access to its trade secrets and that, following his arrival, BeiGene’s BTK degrader research underwent a “sharp change in direction.” Within months, BeiGene began filing patent applications that allegedly incorporated or replicated AbbVie’s proprietary designs.

According to the complaint, BeiGene’s post-hiring patent filings differed significantly from its earlier work and closely resembled AbbVie’s confidential designs, including compounds that were identical or derived from AbbVie’s leading BTK degrader candidates. AbbVie further alleged that BeiGene used these trade secrets to advance its own clinical candidate, BGB-16673. BeiGene and the other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that AbbVie failed to plausibly allege the existence of trade secrets, misappropriation, or sufficient specificity.

Existence of trade secrets. The court first addressed whether AbbVie plausibly alleged the existence of trade secrets. It rejected the defendants’ argument that AbbVie’s designs were publicly disclosed in prior patent applications, noting that the complaint plausibly alleged meaningful differences between AbbVie’s proprietary designs and the structures disclosed in earlier filings.

Relying on Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984), the court reiterated that information generally known in the industry cannot qualify as a trade secret. However, it found that AbbVie adequately alleged that its designs were not publicly known and that even if certain components appeared in prior art, unique combinations of those components could still constitute protectable trade secrets.

The court further held that AbbVie sufficiently pled reasonable measures to maintain secrecy, citing detailed allegations of internal controls, access restrictions, employee training, and confidentiality agreements. Drawing on Learning Curve Toys, Inc. v. PlayWood Toys, Inc., 342 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2003), the court noted that the reasonableness of such measures is typically a fact-intensive inquiry not suitable for resolution at the pleading stage.

Misappropriation. Turning to misappropriation, the court held that AbbVie plausibly alleged improper use or disclosure of trade secrets. The complaint detailed Liu’s access to confidential information, his immediate transition to a competitor, and the rapid development of similar compounds at BeiGene.

The court emphasized that direct evidence of misappropriation is not required and that circumstantial evidence can suffice, citing Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp., 108 F.4th 458 (7th Cir. 2024). It found that the alleged timeline, wherein BeiGene shifted its research direction and produced similar designs shortly after hiring Liu, supported a reasonable inference of misuse.

The court also rejected the argument that AbbVie needed to show that Liu physically took documents, noting that trade secrets can reside in an employee’s memory. The allegations that Liu worked directly on the relevant research and later appeared as an inventor on related patent applications further strengthened the inference of misappropriation.

Specificity of trade secrets. Finally, the court held that AbbVie described its trade secrets with sufficient specificity. At the pleading stage, trade secret claims are not subject to a heightened standard, and plaintiffs may describe them in “broad strokes.” AbbVie identified specific chemical structures, design principles, and categories of proprietary information, supported by diagrams and detailed descriptions. The court found that these allegations adequately put the defendants on notice of the claims against them. It also observed that a plaintiff needs only to plausibly allege the misappropriation of a single trade secret to survive dismissal.

Finally, the court denied the motion to dismiss in its entirety, allowing AbbVie’s trade secret claims to proceed to discovery.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-08167.

Judge: Cummings, J.

Attorneys: Jason G. Winchester (Jones Day) for AbbVie Inc. Patrick Hynds (Williams & Connolly LLP) for BeiGene, Ltd. James L. Thompson (Lynch Thompson LLP) for Huaqing Liu.

Companies: AbbVie Inc.; BeiGene, Ltd.

Cases: TortClaims IllinoisNews