Unlike patents, trademarks, and copyrights, trade secrets derive their value precisely from remaining secret. They protect the formulas, processes, designs, and business information that give companies their competitive edge — without requiring registration, public disclosure, or a fixed term of protection. But when that secrecy is breached, the consequences can be catastrophic for the thief and the victim alike. Nowhere has this drama played out more spectacularly than in Silicon Valley, where the movement of talent between companies is constant and the information those employees carry is invaluable.
“The theft of trade secrets is one of the greatest threats to American innovation and competitiveness.”
— U.S. Department of Justice
Waymo vs. Uber: The Self-Driving Car Espionage Case
When Anthony Levandowski left Google's self-driving car project in January 2016, he downloaded approximately 14,000 confidential files — technical specifications, design documents, and engineering data — before departing. He subsequently founded his own startup, which Uber acquired a month later for approximately $680 million. Waymo, the successor to Google's self-driving project, sued Uber in 2017 under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, alleging that Uber had acquired its technical secrets along with Levandowski's company.
The case settled in February 2018, with Uber paying Waymo approximately $245 million in equity — without admitting liability. Separately, Levandowski was prosecuted criminally, pleading guilty to a single count of trade secret theft in 2020. He was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison and ordered to pay $756,499 in restitution to Google. The case established that trade secret misappropriation in the autonomous vehicle space carries criminal, civil, and massive financial consequences.
The Defend Trade Secrets Act: A Federal Framework
Prior to 2016, trade secret litigation in the United States was governed primarily by a patchwork of state laws based on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) of 2016 created a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation for the first time, allowing rights holders to file suit in federal court without relying on diversity jurisdiction.
The DTSA introduced particularly powerful remedies, including ex parte civil seizure orders — allowing a court to order the seizure of misappropriated secrets without prior notice to the defendant in extraordinary circumstances. It also created whistleblower immunity provisions, protecting employees who disclose trade secrets to government officials in the course of reporting potential legal violations. Since its enactment, DTSA claims have grown substantially year-over-year, reflecting both the statute's accessibility and the growing economic importance of proprietary information.
Protecting Trade Secrets: What Companies Must Do
A trade secret that is not actively protected is not protected at all. Courts consistently hold that a company claiming trade secret protection must demonstrate that it took 'reasonable measures' to maintain the secrecy of the information. What constitutes 'reasonable measures' is context-dependent, but courts look for a consistent and documented program.
Best practices include: tiered access controls that limit employee access to sensitive information on a need-to-know basis; confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements with employees, contractors, and business partners executed before access is granted; regular employee training on the identification and handling of proprietary information; exit interview procedures and equipment return protocols when employees depart; and technical security measures including encryption, access logging, and network monitoring. Companies that cannot demonstrate these measures at trial face the very real risk of having their trade secret claims dismissed regardless of how clear the theft may be.
Employee Mobility and the Non-Compete Landscape
The tension between protecting trade secrets and allowing employees to pursue their careers has generated intense legal scrutiny of non-compete agreements. California has long prohibited enforcement of most non-competes on public policy grounds — a rule the Federal Trade Commission proposed to expand nationally with a 2024 rule that faced immediate legal challenges.
Even in states where non-competes are enforceable, courts apply scrutiny to their scope and duration. An overly broad agreement — covering too many activities, too wide a geography, or too long a period — may be struck down entirely or 'blue-penciled' to a narrower scope. Smart trade secret protection strategy does not rely solely on non-competes; it combines reasonable restrictive covenants with robust information security practices, garden-leave clauses for key employees, and careful documentation of what information each employee actually had access to.
Conclusion
Trade secrets are simultaneously among the most valuable and most vulnerable categories of intellectual property. Unlike patents, they can be protected indefinitely — but a single breach can eliminate their value in an instant. Intel Trademark's trade secret practice helps businesses design and implement comprehensive protection programs, respond swiftly to suspected misappropriation, and pursue or defend against litigation with the urgency these cases demand.
