IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—D. Conn.: Trade secret misappropriation claims dismissed in dispute between animal behavior consulting firms, (Apr 7, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The court found the alleged trade secrets insufficiently defined and partly public, but allowed a narrow contract claim based on retention of confidential materials to proceed.

A federal district court in Connecticut has dismissed federal and state trade secret misappropriation claims, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition claims brought by a dog-training company against a former employee, holding that the plaintiff failed to identify its alleged trade secrets with sufficient specificity and that portions of the claimed information were publicly available. The court nevertheless allowed a limited breach-of-contract claim to proceed to trial, confined to whether the defendant improperly retained defined “confidential information” before March 23, 2025, under a non-compete agreement. The court also denied summary judgment on the defendants’ counterclaims, finding triable issues on CUTPA violations, tortious interference, defamation per se, and related claims (Beyond the Dog, LLC v. Salzer, No. 3:24-cv-01439-VAB (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Beyond the Dog, LLC, is a Missouri-based dog-training business. The individual plaintiffs include its principals, Dr. Kristyn Echterling-Savage and Sean Savage. The defendants are Allyson Salzer, a former employee who later established her own competing business, Canine Behavioral Blueprints, LLC, after relocating to Connecticut. The dispute arose from the breakdown of their prior professional relationship following Dr. Salzer’s departure in 2023 and her subsequent independent practice.

The plaintiff asserted that its trade secrets consisted of a proprietary behavioral assessment system used to analyze client data and generate training recommendations. This system allegedly included a non-public scoring matrix that weighted values assigned to questionnaire responses, category aggregation rules, risk thresholds, and structured reports that mapped behavioral inputs to specific training protocols. According to the plaintiff, these components operated together as an integrated intake-to-analysis framework that produced tailored behavioral recommendations. The defendants, however, contended that the underlying materials—including aspects of the questionnaire and scoring methodology—were publicly available, disclosed in academic work, or broadly accessible to employees, and therefore did not qualify for trade secret protection.

The dispute began after Dr. Salzer, who had worked with the plaintiff while pursuing doctoral research, left the company and established her own practice. The plaintiff alleged that she retained confidential materials, misappropriated trade secrets, and used them in her competing business and academic dissertation. It filed claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act, along with breach-of-contract and related causes of action. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to identify any specific trade secret and that the materials were either public or authorized for academic use. The plaintiff, in turn, moved for summary judgment on counterclaims alleging interference, unfair trade practices, and defamation.

Trade secrets analysis. The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold requirement of identifying a protectable trade secret with sufficient specificity. Citing Next Communications, Inc. v. Viber Media, Inc., 2017 WL 4402540 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2017), aff’d, 758 F. App’x 46 (2d Cir. 2018), the court emphasized that a party opposing summary judgment must clearly define the alleged trade secret. It found that terms such as “scoring matrix,” “non-public logic,” and “risk thresholds” were vague descriptors that did not allow a factfinder to assess what was actually proprietary.

The court further relied on Big Vision Private Ltd. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 1 F. Supp. 3d 224 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), to reiterate that trade secrets must be described with particularity and cannot be established through broad references to document productions. It noted that portions of the alleged system, including questionnaire content and scoring elements, had been disclosed in academic materials or were accessible to employees, undermining claims of secrecy.

As a result, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find the existence of a protectable trade secret and granted summary judgment dismissing both DTSA and MUTSA claims.

Breach of contract. The court reached a different conclusion on the breach-of-contract claim. Applying Missouri law, it held that the Trainer Non-Compete Agreement remained enforceable only within a two-year post-employment period, expiring on March 23, 2025. Citing Armstrong v. Cape Girardeau Physician Associates, 49 S.W.3d 821 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001), the court emphasized that restrictive covenants must be reasonable in time and scope.

Importantly, the court interpreted the agreement to exclude academic and non-profit activities, holding that materials used for dissertation purposes fell within a contractual carveout. However, it found a genuine issue of fact as to whether the defendant retained confidential information unrelated to academic use. That limited issue—retention of defined confidential materials before the expiry date—was left for trial.

Unjust enrichment and unfair competition. The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, holding that it duplicated the trade secret and contract theories and did not provide an independent basis for recovery. Relying on CoMo Premium Construction LLC v. Pulster, 724 S.W.3d 823 (Mo. Ct. App. 2025), it noted that alternative equitable claims cannot survive where they are based on the same alleged harm as contractual claims.

Similarly, the court rejected both state and federal unfair competition claims. Under Missouri law, it held that unfair competition requires “passing off,” which was not established. Under the Lanham Act, it applied Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), to conclude that claims based on misappropriation of ideas or methods—rather than source confusion—are not actionable.

Counterclaims—CUTPA and interference

Turning to the defendants’ counterclaims, the court denied summary judgment, finding multiple factual disputes. It held that allegations involving communications with third parties, interference with employment opportunities, and business disruption could fall within the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). It rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the conduct was purely employment-related, noting that the evidence could support a finding of unfair or deceptive practices in trade or commerce. The court also allowed tortious interference claims to proceed, holding that evidence relating to communications with employers, seminar organizers, and third parties raised triable issues on intent, justification, and causation.

Defamation per se. The defamation claim likewise survived. The court held that an alleged statement accusing the defendant of “stealing” materials could constitute defamation per se under Connecticut law. It found disputed issues of falsity, substantial truth, and privilege, particularly given conflicting evidence regarding whether the defendant improperly retained confidential materials.

Other counterclaims. The court also denied summary judgment on common-law unfair competition and negligent infliction of emotional distress, holding that the record contained sufficient evidence of potentially wrongful conduct, including alleged interference, surveillance, and reputational harm. These claims required factual determination at trial.

Outcome. The ruling significantly narrowed the plaintiff’s case by eliminating all trade secret and related claims, leaving only a limited breach-of-contract issue for trial. At the same time, the defendants’ counterclaims remained largely intact.

The Case is No. 3:24-cv-01439-VAB.

Judge: Bolden, V.

Attorneys: Arthur Shaffer (Smith & Buchanan, P.C.) for Beyond the Dog, LLC. Kate Elizabeth Cassidy (Wiggin and Dana LLP) for Allyson Salzer.

Companies: Beyond the Dog, LLC.

Cases: TradeSecrets ConnecticutNews