IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—Fed. Cir.: Summary judgment affirmed since business analytics firm failed to sufficiently define its trade secrets, (Jan 28, 2026)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

There was no genuine question of material fact as to misappropriation of trade secrets when there was no evidence in the record as to which elements of a voluminous set of documents were actually secret and which elements were publicly available.

A provider of business analytics services failed to show any error in a trial court’s grant of summary judgment against its trade secrets claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The provider argued that a breach of contract claim had been improperly dismissed and that its secrets were sufficiently defined. The court disagreed, finding that the trial court had properly found that there was no evidence from which a trier of fact could determine whether the claimed secrets met the statutory definition (Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc. v. Marketdial, Inc., No. 24-1751 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 28, 2026)).

Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc. (APT) is a provider of business analytics services. APT brought suit for trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract, among other claims, against a competitor, MarketDial, Inc. (MarketDial) and the founders of MarketDial, who had been employees of a consulting firm that gained access to APT’s confidential information in the course of its work for APT. The trial court granted a motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim and, later, granted summary judgment in favor of MarketDial on the trade secrets claim. APT appealed.

Trade secrets. APT argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against its claims under the Utah Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The trial court had found that APT failed to identify and define its trade secrets sufficiently, pointing instead to voluminous documents which included both potential trade secrets and publicly available information. The court held that the trial court had properly determined that even absent a particularity requirement, which Utah law did not impose, APT was still required to define its claimed secrets in a manner that would allow the fact finder to determine if a trade secret existed under the statute.

Intended beneficiary. APT argued that the trial court erred in dismissing its claim for breach of contract. The contract in question was an employment agreement between a consultant, who worked with APT, and his employer, the consulting firm McKinsey & Company, Inc. That agreement contained provisions restricting the consultant’s use of a client’s confidential information, and the consultant had obtained and allegedly misappropriated that information through his employment at McKinsey & Company, Inc. The court found that the trial court had properly found the employment agreement did not show that the consultant and his employer intended to confer a separate and distinct benefit to APT.

The court affirmed both the grant of summary judgment as the trade secrets claim and the dismissal of the breach of contract claim.

The Case is No. 24-1751.

Judge: Prost, S.

Attorneys: David Goroff (Foley & Lardner LLP) for Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc. Keith Anson Call (Spencer Fane LLP) for Marketdial, Inc.

Companies: Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc.; Marketdial, Inc.

Cases: TradeSecrets FedCirNews