IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—S.D.N.Y.: Summary judgment granted in digital architecture dispute, (Jun 23, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Claims related to an asserted “architecture for a digital platform” were dismissed because the plaintiff was unable to describe his claimed architecture with the specificity required to define a protectable trade secret.

A former employee of IBM Corp. failed to show a genuine question of material fact existed in his trade secrets claim against his former employer, the U.S. District Court in White Plains has held. The employee claimed a trade secret interest in an architecture for a digital platform but was unable to define that claimed secret (Hayden v. International Business Machines Corp., No. 7:21-cv-02485-VB-JCM (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 17, 2025)).

Gerald Hayden was employed at International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) from 2015 until 2018 as an industry consultant. During his employment, Hayden shared a “methodology to construct an architecture for a digital platform,” which he called “Awareness to Execution” (A2E) that he had developed prior to his employment by IBM and described as his “life’s work.” Hayden was eventually terminated from his employment and subsequently suspected that IBM had incorporated his A2E trade secrets into its “Cloud Paks” line of software products.

Hayden brought suit against IBM and several individual employees thereof for misappropriation of trade secrets under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and for violating New York’s prohibition on the misappropriation of trade secrets, as well as for various state law claims and retaliatory discharge under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. IBM moved to exclude the testimony of Hayden’s expert and for summary judgment.

Expert witness. Applying the Daubert standard, the court found that the proposed expert, who was supposed to testify as to the nature and value of A2E, was not qualified to testify as an expert because he did not rely on sufficient facts or data or on reliable methodologies, but only on his personal experience in the industry. The proposed methodology was simply a comparison of presentation slide decks describing both A2E and the accused Cloud Pak products, which did not require a specialized method and intruded on the province of the fact finder.

Trade secrets. The court found that Hayden failed to identify his claimed secret with the required particularity, instead equivocating on nearly every element of description and providing neither a concrete list of components nor an explanation of how those components in any combination met the definition of a trade secret. This lack of specificity, which the court described as a “moving target,” made it impossible for IBM to effectively defend the claim. Additionally, the court found that the claimed secret was described by Hayden as a “methodology to construct an architecture for a digital platform.” Unlike a source code or other material which could remain secret, this architecture would necessarily be public once it was incorporated into a product, in the same way that a building’s blueprints lose secrecy when the building is constructed and open to the public. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted against Hayden’s trade secrets claims.

The court also granted summary judgment on state law contract and related claims, but denied it as to retaliatory termination, finding a genuine question of material fact existed as to whether a complaint made by Hayden of illegal activity was a factor in his termination.

The Case is No. 7:21-cv-02485-VB-JCM.

Judge: Briccetti, V.

Attorneys: David S. Stone (Stone & Magnanini LLP) for Gerald Hayden. Benjamin Chasan (Jones Day) for International Business Machines Corp.

Companies: International Business Machines Corp.

Cases: TechnologyInternet TradeSecrets NewYorkNews