Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, TRADE SECRETS—D. Utah: Shipping protection provider’s trade secret claims against rival survive summary judgment, (Aug 27, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

Evidence of access to confidential pricing, merchant data, and portal information, coupled with similarities in a rival’s business, created triable issues of trade secret misappropriation.

A shipping protection services provider’s Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and Utah Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UUTSA) claims against a rival shipping protection company and several former employees survived summary judgment because factual disputes remained over whether its pricing methodology, merchant data, and merchant portal constituted protectable trade secrets and whether the defendants misappropriated them. The federal district court in Utah also granted the provider partial summary judgment on several contract claims, finding that the rival company’s co-founder and three former employees breached specified contractual obligations. However, other alleged breaches and resulting damages remained for trial, and the provider failed to establish entitlement to a permanent injunction (Route App, Inc. v. OrderProtection.com, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00606-DAK-CMR (D. Utah Aug. 24, 2026)).

Competing businesses. Route provides post-purchase shipping insurance and related merchant services. It hired several of the individual defendants during its early years, giving them access to confidential business information and requiring them to execute confidentiality, nondisclosure, nonsolicitation and, in some cases, noncompetition agreements. OrderProtection operates a competing shipping protection business. Its co-founder, Julian Wilson, previously co-founded Dose of Roses, a floral and gift company that became a Route customer in 2020. Route account executive Matthew Lefrandt brought Dose of Roses to Route. After Route terminated Lefrandt in August 2020, he and Wilson formed OrderProtection. Four other former Route employees later joined the competitor.

At summary judgment, Route focused on three asserted trade secrets: its pricing and revenue-sharing formulas, merchant data, and merchant portal. Its pricing methodology used claim rates, loss ratios, order values, premiums, and historical data to determine merchant-specific pricing and revenue-sharing arrangements. Its merchant data included transaction volumes, loss histories, pricing terms, purchasing behavior, commercial needs and strategic value. The merchant portal incorporated claim-resolution workflows, analytics, and other functions developed through data, merchant feedback and trial and error.

Wilson accessed Route’s merchant portal through Dose of Roses. Route alleged that he later provided his credentials to OrderProtection developers. Former Route employees allegedly disclosed information about major merchants, finances, and opt-out rates; used knowledge gained at Route to develop OrderProtection’s software; and identified Route customers to target.

Route sued in September 2023 for breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation under the DTSA and UUTSA. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Route cross-moved for partial summary judgment on its contract claims and sought a permanent injunction.

Protectable information. The defendants argued that Route described its alleged trade secrets too broadly and that the underlying features and information were publicly available. The court disagreed that those arguments warranted summary judgment.

Under Double Eagle Alloys, Inc. v. Hooper, 134 F.4th 1078, 1087-89 (10th Cir. 2025), a claimant must identify tangible trade secret material rather than rely on broad categories containing unidentified secrets. Route met that standard for its pricing methodology by identifying proprietary variables and calculations used to assess risk, determine merchant-specific pricing, and allocate revenue. The court reasoned that internal financial calculations between competitors represented a paradigmatic trade secret.

The fact that consumers could observe individual shipping insurance prices did not establish that Route’s underlying pricing methodology was readily ascertainable. The model incorporated confidential variables, merchant-specific data, and internal calculations not revealed by an individual quote. Route also presented evidence that it restricted access to the information and required confidentiality agreements.

Merchant data presented similar factual questions. Although public sources could identify some Route customers, that did not necessarily disclose Route’s compilation of merchant-specific commercial intelligence. Citing Hertz v. Luzenac Group, 576 F.3d 1103, 1114 (10th Cir. 2009), the court explained that a customer list could remain a trade secret when it resulted from substantial efforts to compile information from diverse sources, even when some underlying information was publicly available.

Route likewise presented enough evidence concerning particular merchant-portal functions and workflows to reach trial. Although some user-facing features were observable, a jury could find that the underlying arrangement, operation, and data-informed development remained confidential.

Misappropriation. Evidence also created a triable dispute over misappropriation. Wilson allegedly supplied his portal credentials to developers building OrderProtection’s competing portal. Lefrandt allegedly shared merchant names and financial information and used knowledge about Route customers when soliciting them. Other former employees allegedly applied information acquired at Route to OrderProtection’s software and customer targeting.

The defendants maintained that they independently developed OrderProtection and merely used their general knowledge and industry experience. That competing account raised a factual issue rather than establishing entitlement to judgment. Access to Route’s confidential information, alleged disclosure of merchant-specific information, shared portal credentials, and subsequent development of a competing product supplied sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to find misappropriation. The court therefore denied summary judgment on both trade secret claims.

Contract breaches. Route separately obtained partial summary judgment on several contract theories. Wilson became bound by Route’s online Terms and Conditions when he accessed the merchant portal. The court characterized the arrangement as a “sign-in-wrap” rather than a browse wrap agreement because the login process expressly notified him that continuing constituted agreement to the terms. His disclosure of login credentials to a developer building a competing product breached restrictions on third-party access and competitive use.

The court also found that Lefrandt breached confidentiality obligations by using nonpublic knowledge about particular merchants’ dissatisfaction, needs, and revenue-sharing arrangements. Chatterley similarly breached his obligations by using merchant-specific financial information while OrderProtection pursued a former Route customer. Steele breached his noncompetition agreement by joining OrderProtection within a week of leaving Route and substantially contributing to its competing customer-service operations.

Other alleged contractual breaches remained disputed. In particular, factual issues prevented summary judgment concerning Perkins’ and Clark’s alleged use of confidential information and several nonsolicitation theories. Route also produced enough evidence of lost merchant revenue and competitive harm to create factual disputes over causation and damages.

Injunction denied. Route nevertheless failed to obtain a permanent injunction. Although it established certain contractual breaches, unresolved elements of its claims meant that it had not yet achieved complete success on the merits. Nor had it shown irreparable injury. Its alleged losses principally concerned identifiable merchants, employees, revenue and competitive harm that could potentially be compensated through monetary damages. Under Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 165-66 (2010), a permanent injunction remained an extraordinary remedy rather than an automatic consequence of contractual violations.

The court therefore denied the defendants’ summary judgment motion in its entirety and granted Route’s partial summary judgment motion only in part. The DTSA and UUTSA claims, disputed contract issues, causation, and damages will proceed toward trial, while Route’s request for a permanent injunction was denied.

The Case is No. 2:23-cv-00606-DAK-CMR.

Judge: Kimball, D.

Attorneys: David L. Mortensen (Foley & Lardner LLP) for Route App. Matthew L. Lalli (Snell & Wilmer LLP) for OrderProtection.com, Inc.

Companies: Route App; OrderProtection.com, Inc.

Cases: TradeSecrets ContractClaims UtahNews