IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—D. Del.: Dismissal granted in part in courier service dispute, (Jan 6, 2026)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

A claim for tortious interference relating to a confidentiality agreement failed because the alleged damages were speculative and conclusory.

A courier company stated claims against a competitor for misappropriation of trade secrets but not for tortious interference relating to those same secrets, the U.S. District Court in Wilmington has held. The courier failed to properly allege damages resulting from the tortious interference, (Courier Network, Inc. v. Airspace Technologies, Inc., No. 25-214-GBW (D. Del. Jan. 5, 2026)).

Courier NetWork, Inc. and Courier NetWork Vietnam Co., Ltd. (collectively, Courier) operated a courier service both domestically and internationally. Airspace Technologies, Inc. (Airspace) was a competitor of Courier’s. Courier brought suit against Airspace for misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference with contract, alleging that Airspace had hired former Courier employees, who were subject to non-competition and non-disclosure agreements, in an attempt to obtain confidential information. Airspace moved to dismiss.

Trade secrets. Airspace argued that Courier had failed to identify its trade secrets with sufficient specificity and that it had failed to allege any actual acts of misappropriation. The court found that Courier’s description of its trade secrets as customer lists, pricing, routings, policies, customized software, and similar descriptions was sufficient for the pleading stage. The court further found that the complaint plausibly alleged Airspace had used the confidential information obtained from the former Courier employees to solicit customers of Courier’s.

Tortious interference. As to tortious interference with a contract, the court found that Courier had plausibly alleged the existence of a contract with a third party in the form of the non-disclosure agreements between Courier and its former employees, knowledge of that contract on the part of Airspace, intentional procurement of a breach, and actual breach. Courier had, however, alleged damages only in a speculative and conclusory manner, failing to identify lost business, employees, profits, or anything of that nature. Without allegations of actual damages, the claim could not survive.

The court denied the motion to dismiss as to the trade secrets claims but granted it as to tortious interference with contract.

The Case is No. 25-214-GBW.

Judge: Williams, G.

Attorneys: Arthur G. Connolly (Connolly Gallagher LLP) for Courier Network, Inc. and Courier Network Vietnam Co., Ltd. Samuel L. Moultrie (Greenberg Traurig, LLP) for Airspace Technologies, Inc.

Companies: Courier Network, Inc.; Courier Network Vietnam Co., Ltd.; Airspace Technologies, Inc.

Cases: TradeSecrets DelawareNews