IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—S.D.N.Y.: Caviar-technology trade secrets and patent claims dismissed against luxury cosmetics maker, (Mar 5, 2026)

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

Trade secret claims dismissed under a Swiss forum-selection clause and for failure to plead protective measures; patent claim failed for lack of plausible infringement allegations.

A federal district court in New York has dismissed all claims brought by a biotechnology company against a luxury cosmetics brand, finding that the brand did not misappropriate trade secrets or infringe a patent relating to caviar-derived cosmetic technology. The court held that trade secret claims tied to confidential disclosures made under a non-disclosure agreement had to be litigated in Switzerland under a mandatory forum-selection clause. It further ruled that the remaining trade secret claims failed because the plaintiff did not plausibly allege reasonable measures to protect the alleged secrets, while related unfair competition and unjust enrichment claims were legally deficient. The court also dismissed the patent infringement claim, concluding that the complaint’s factual allegations contradicted infringement of the asserted patent method. Because the deficiencies could not be cured, the court denied leave to amend and closed the case (Caviar Biotec Ltd. v. La Prairie, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01707-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Caviar Biotec Ltd., is a London-based biotechnology company engaged in research and development relating to the biochemical properties of caviar and its applications. The defendant, Laboratoires La Prairie SA, is a Swiss cosmetics manufacturer headquartered in Zurich.

The dispute involved alleged proprietary technologies concerning the extraction and analysis of caviar compounds used in skincare formulations. The biotechnology company asserted that its confidential materials included proteomic analyses of caviar components, proprietary datasets on the biochemical composition of caviar, transcriptomic information, and documents describing a “Clean Caviar” technology and related research initiatives. The complaint also asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,197,490 (the ’490 patent), titled Sturgeon Roe Sack Membrane-Derived Oil, which describes a method of extracting oil from sturgeon roe sack membranes through protein-denaturing treatment.

The controversy arose from communications and discussions on research collaboration between the parties beginning in 2020. The biotechnology company alleged that it initially disclosed confidential research to Capsum, a cosmetics manufacturer that allegedly served as a supplier to the Swiss cosmetics company. The plaintiff claimed that Capsum transferred or otherwise exposed those trade secrets to the cosmetics company. In 2021, the parties executed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) while exploring a potential collaboration involving the plaintiff’s caviar-based cosmetic technologies. According to the complaint, the cosmetics company later introduced skincare products containing “Caviar Micro-Nutrients” and other bioengineered caviar-derived components. The biotechnology company alleged that the defendants used the disclosed trade secrets to develop those products and also marketed products that infringed the ’490 patent.

The biotechnology company filed the lawsuit in the Southern District of New York, asserting trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), misappropriation of trade secrets under New York law, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and patent infringement. The cosmetics companies moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that several claims were barred by the NDA’s forum-selection clause, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Swiss company, that the complaint failed to plead reasonable measures to protect the alleged trade secrets, that the unfair competition and unjust enrichment claims were deficient, and that the patent infringement allegations were implausible.

Forum selection clause. The court first addressed whether the NDA required the trade secret claims to be litigated in Switzerland. Applying the four-part framework described by the Second Circuit in Rabinowitz v. Kelman, 75 F.4th 73 (2d Cir. 2023), the court concluded that the clause was enforceable and mandatory. The NDA stated that disputes would be governed by Swiss law and that the “exclusive jurisdiction” would lie with the competent courts at La Prairie's domicile.

The court held that the clause had been reasonably communicated to the biotechnology company because its officers signed and initialed the NDA. It also concluded that the clause was mandatory because the agreement expressly granted “exclusive jurisdiction” to Swiss courts. As a result, the court ruled that trade secret, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment claims based on disclosures made under the NDA had to be brought in Switzerland. The court therefore dismissed those claims under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Personal jurisdiction. The cosmetics manufacturer also argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Swiss entity. The court rejected that argument at the pleading stage. Applying New York’s long-arm statute, the court held that the plaintiff had made a prima facie showing that the Swiss company transacted business in the state by distributing and marketing its skincare products through New York retailers and affiliates. The court cited Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2013), for the principle that jurisdiction exists where the defendant transacts business in New York and the claims arise from that activity. Because the plaintiff alleged that the accused products were marketed and sold in the district, the court found the jurisdictional requirement satisfied.

Reasonable protective measures. The court next examined the trade secret claims relating to disclosures made outside the NDA. Under both the DTSA and New York law, a plaintiff must allege that it took reasonable steps to protect the secrecy of the information.

The biotechnology company alleged that it restricted access to confidential information and secured its electronic systems. However, the court concluded that those allegations were too conclusory to satisfy federal pleading standards. The complaint did not identify which employees had access to the information, the technological safeguards in place, or whether confidentiality agreements existed with relevant parties. Citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the court explained that “threadbare recitals” of the elements of a claim are insufficient. It also cited Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984), to emphasize that a trade secret owner loses protection if the information is disclosed without confidentiality obligations. Because the complaint failed to allege specific protective measures, the court dismissed the trade secret claims.

Unfair competition. The court also dismissed the unfair competition claim. Under New York law, an unfair competition claim requires misappropriation through fraud, deception, or abuse of a confidential relationship. The biotechnology company alleged that the cosmetics company used information obtained through the Capsum disclosure. However, the court found no plausible allegation that the information had been obtained through fraud or deception. Because the complaint did not plausibly allege bad faith or wrongful conduct, the unfair competition claim failed.

Unjust enrichment. The court further ruled that the unjust enrichment claim was duplicative of the trade secret claims. Under New York law, unjust enrichment cannot stand when it merely replicates other contract or tort theories. Because the biotechnology company relied on the same factual allegations underlying its trade secret claims, the court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as redundant.

Patent infringement. Finally, the court addressed the patent infringement claim involving the ’490 patent. The biotechnology company alleged that the cosmetics company’s skincare products contained caviar-derived retinol that necessarily originated from the sturgeon roe sack membrane. The court held that the allegation did not plausibly establish infringement.

The asserted patent claimed a specific method for producing oil derived from the roe sack membrane by applying a protein-denaturing treatment. The complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendants practiced that method. Instead, the court observed that the complaint’s own allegations suggested that the accused products extracted compounds from sturgeon roe eggs rather than the membrane itself. Because the complaint failed to plausibly allege that the defendants practiced the claimed method, the court dismissed the patent infringement claim with prejudice.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-01707-LAP.

Judge: Preska, L.

Attorneys: Ariel Reinitz (Bochner PLLC) for Caviar Biotec Ltd. Evan S. Nadel (Kilpatrick Townsend Stockton, LLP) for La Prairie, Inc.

Companies: Caviar Biotec Ltd.; La Prairie, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory TradeSecrets NewYorkNews GCNNews