IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—N.D. Cal.: Dismissal granted in pharmaceutical trade secrets dispute, (Feb 17, 2026)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Allegations failed to plausibly allege an act of misappropriation and instead relied on a theory of inevitable disclosure.

A pharmaceutical company failed to state a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets against former employees and their new employer, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco has held. The former employees, two doctors, allegedly used information from their former employment to develop a new drug at a different company. The claims for misappropriation of trade secrets failed because the complaint did not plausibly allege an act of misappropriation. Instead, the claim assumed that misappropriation was inevitable when the doctors worked on similar subject matter for the new employer (PTC Therapeutics, Inc. v. AcureX Biosciences Corp., No. 3:25-cv-04594-AMO (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2026)).

PTC Therapeutics, Inc. (PTC) was a developer of certain treatments for neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and Friedreich’s ataxia. PTC was the purchaser of assets of another biosciences company known as BioElectron, which included the drug Vatiquinone, a “second generation” Vatiquinone known as EPI-857, and a chemical library of potential starting points for new research into treatments for neurodegeneration. BioElectron had formerly employed the two doctors, Dr. William Shrader and Dr. Sean Pintchovski, both of whom eventually left and began working for Acurex Biosciences Corporation (Acurex), where they allegedly used information obtained from their employment at BioElectron to develop a new drug for the treatment of neurodegeneration known as CU-13001, and hid the connection to BioElectron by misattributing inventorship on a related patent application to another doctor. PTC brought suit against Acurex, Shrader, and Pintchovski for misappropriation of trade secrets under federal and California law, breach of contract and unfair competition under California law, and sought a declaratory judgment determining that it was the true owner of the disputed patent application. All three defendants moved to dismiss.

Trade secrets. PTC asserted several claimed trade secrets. The majority of these claimed secrets were, the court held, not non-public, because, for example, PTC had disclosed them in detail in its own complaint. The court found that two of the alleged secrets did not possess this defect, but the nature of those two claimed secrets was redacted from the court’s opinion. The court also found, however, that PTC did not plausibly plead misappropriation of those secrets. The mere allegation that the doctors worked on related projects at the two different employers, without more, was not sufficient by itself to show they misappropriated materials belonging to the first employer. Likewise, similarity between the drug products without more was not sufficient to show misappropriation.

Breach of contract and unfair competition. PTC’s allegations with respect to breach of confidentiality agreements by the two doctors as well as violation of California’s unfair competition statute both hinged on the same factual allegations of misappropriation which the court had already found were not plausibly alleged. Accordingly, these counts were also dismissed.

Declaratory judgment. The court found that declaratory judgment was not appropriate when it had already dismissed all of the substantive claims asserted by PTC.

The court granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety, with leave to amend.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-04594-AMO.

Judge: Martinez-Olguin, A.

Attorneys: Colby Brian Springer (Polsinelli LLP) for PTC Therapeutics, Inc. Brian Danitz (Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP) for AcureX Biosciences Corp.

Companies: PTC Therapeutics, Inc.; AcureX Biosciences Corp.

Cases: TradeSecrets CaliforniaNews