Trade Secrets In A Borderless World
As technology accelerates and borders shrink, protecting trade secrets has become one of the most pressing challenges for global businesses.
With legal frameworks differing widely across jurisdictions, the need for Israeli companies expanding internationally to better understand how other markets define, enforce, and future-proof trade secret protection is vital.
Our member firms shared changes they are seeing in trade secret laws around the globe and what they mean, both for Israeli companies and the future of intellectual property law in an age of major technological and geopolitical shifts.
Nathan Renov, Pillsbury: “Trade secret law has undergone a quiet but far-reaching transformation over the past decade.
In the United States, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) of 2016 created the first federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation, aligning a patchwork of state laws under a single national standard. The DTSA’s reach is notably broad: it applies extraterritorially, empowers courts to issue ex parte seizure orders, and provides robust remedies for both domestic and cross-border misappropriation.
By contrast, the European Union’s Trade Secrets Directive of the same year sought to harmonize national laws but did so with a greater emphasis on procedural fairness and proportionality. European courts tend to demand stronger evidence that a company has taken concrete, reasonable measures to maintain confidentiality before granting injunctive relief or damages, reflecting a more cautious and balanced approach.
Across Asia, the picture is increasingly dynamic. China has made substantial strides in strengthening its trade secret protections, expanding definitions, increasing damages, and introducing criminal penalties to deter misappropriation. Japan and South Korea have likewise deepened their criminal enforcement mechanisms and enhanced corporate governance requirements, encouraging firms to implement formal internal controls to protect sensitive information.
These regional differences hold clear lessons for Israeli companies operating globally. Courts everywhere now expect companies to document the steps they take to protect their confidential information. ‘Reasonable measures’ is no longer a theoretical standard but a practical test of compliance culture. Israeli companies must ensure their non-disclosure and employment agreements reflect local enforceability standards and that they understand how cross-border data transfers intersect with privacy and export control regimes such as the GDPR and U.S. export laws.”
Jordan D. Grotzinger, Greenberg Traurig: “In the U.S., employee mobility rules differ across states and evolve, which in turn affects trade secret protection. In some states, non-compete agreements are prohibited, which requires companies to place more emphasis on trade secret protection, since employees who know the employee’s confidential information can join a competitor. At the federal level, the FTC banned non-competes last year, but that ban was enjoined and the federal prohibition on non-competes has focused on critical industries like healthcare, so that healthcare workers are not restricted from providing care.
Israeli companies with business in the U.S. should be aware of whether their U.S. partners are able to enforce non-competes and, if not, ensure that those companies have other measures in place to protect trade secrets in which the Israeli companies have an interest.”
The convergence of cybersecurity and trade secret law
Nathan Renov, Pillsbury: “Trade secret protection is increasingly shaped by how courts interpret ‘reasonable measures’ in a digital environment. Companies are expected to demonstrate formal, documented safeguards—confidentiality agreements, access controls, and internal policies—that can withstand judicial scrutiny.
The convergence of cybersecurity and trade secret law has also become central: forensic data, access logs, and privacy compliance frameworks now form critical evidence in misappropriation cases. In the United States, the DTSA continues to extend federal jurisdiction over cross-border disputes, reinforcing the need for globally consistent protection and documentation practices. Across jurisdictions, the trend is clear—trade secret governance is evolving from a business norm into a legally enforceable standard of care.”
Jordan D. Grotzinger, Greenberg Traurig: “Jurisdictions have different standards for the level of required protection, but regardless of jurisdiction, the trade secret owner should make its protection as robust as possible, and protection generally falls into four categories: (1) contracts and corporate policies (like NDAs, confidentiality clauses in employment agreements and corporate policies restricting access to sensitive information); (2) technology (like passwords and VPNS); (3) physical (locks to protect secret materials/hardware); and (4) education and training across the company to remind employees about their obligations relative to confidential information.”
Adam Wolek, Fox Rothschild: “After the enactment of the DTSA, which established federal-level protection for trade secrets across the U.S., companies have increasingly turned to U.S. courts to enforce their trade secret rights. This trend has led to a large rise in the number and size of jury verdicts against entities found to have misappropriated trade secrets.
The robust enforcement mechanisms available under the DTSA have made U.S. litigation an attractive option for companies seeking to protect their intellectual assets. As a result, many businesses now prefer to pursue trade secret claims in the United States rather than in jurisdictions within the European Union or Asia. This shift reflects a broader global trend toward stronger legal frameworks and more aggressive litigation strategies by companies to protect their trade secrets.”
How courts and regulators are redefining trade secrets in the wake of AI and other new frontiers
Nathan Renov, Pillsbury: “The rapid growth of AI and biotechnology is forcing courts and regulators to reconsider what information qualifies as a trade secret. Increasingly, the focus has shifted from tangible inventions to data, algorithms, and technical processes that drive innovation but may not fit within traditional IP categories.
In the AI context, training datasets, labeling methodologies, and model architectures are now being asserted as trade secrets, while in biotech, proprietary genetic or molecular data often straddle the line between regulatory disclosure and confidentiality. These developments are prompting courts to refine the ‘reasonable secrecy’ standard, evaluating whether protective measures reflect modern technological realities such as cloud-based collaboration and shared research environments. In this evolving landscape, the adequacy of confidentiality measures—not the novelty of the underlying technology—determines whether information remains legally protectable.”
Jordan D. Grotzinger, Greenberg Traurig: “As technology better (and sometimes exponentially) enables the discovery of confidential information, some courts are recognizing that information that is accessed with advanced technology should still be treated as secret and protectible.
For example, a U.S. case addressed the technology of “scraping” data from the internet, which data would not otherwise be accessible. The court recognized that using technology like a bot to collect an otherwise infeasible amount of data could constitute “improper means” and therefore misappropriation.
Trade secret law protects information that derives value from not being readily ascertainable; if only an advanced technology allows access to confidential information that otherwise would not be humanly possible, courts might continue to treat the information as secret and protectible. Expect this issue to arise more as AI enables reverse-engineering of trade secrets, which generally does not constitute misappropriation, and expect the law to begin to restrict the reverse-engineering exception to protect trade secrets from such advanced tools.”
Adam Wolek, Fox Rothschild: “Courts continue to interpret trade secrets broadly, protecting a wide range of information—whether tangible or intangible—as long as it is kept confidential.
Examples of protectable trade secrets include financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, and engineering information. This may encompass patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, and codes. Even customer or client lists can be trade secrets.
Importantly, the format in which the information is stored does not affect its eligibility for protection. Trade secrets may be documented physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing. The key requirement is that reasonable steps are taken to maintain the secrecy of the information.”
Maintaining a clear nexus to U.S. commerce is essential
Nathan Renov, Pillsbury: “Trade secret enforcement is increasingly influenced by geopolitical, regulatory, and technological forces. Heightened tensions between the United States and China are transforming trade secret protection into a matter of economic and national security, while export controls and data localization regimes complicate cross-border research, development, and data sharing.
At the same time, emerging AI governance and transparency frameworks may require companies to disclose technical information that tests the boundaries of confidentiality, prompting courts and regulators to strike a delicate balance between oversight and innovation.
International organizations such as WIPO and the OECD are also advancing efforts to harmonize trade secret standards, signaling a gradual move toward globally aligned enforcement principles. For Israeli innovators—particularly in AI, cybersecurity, and defense—these developments are especially significant.
These sectors rely on a combination of proprietary data, algorithms, and engineering know-how that often sit at the intersection of trade secret and patent protection. Rather than assuming only one form of IP protection should be implemented, an effective strategy demands a holistic approach in which patents safeguard public-facing innovation while trade secrets protect the operational and technical knowledge that must remain confidential.
Israeli companies expanding abroad should work closely with counsel to develop a coordinated intellectual property strategy that integrates trade secret practices into broader patent, licensing, and compliance frameworks. By uniting these elements under a single, forward-looking approach, Israeli innovators can ensure that their technological strengths are matched by robust legal protection across multiple jurisdictions.”
Adam Wolek, Fox Rothschild: “Courts in the United States are increasingly asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction under laws such as the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). This trend exposes companies to greater liability for trade secret misappropriation—even when the alleged conduct occurs outside U.S. borders—so long as there is a demonstrable connection to U.S. commerce. As geopolitical tensions continue to rise, the use of extraterritorial enforcement is expected to expand.
For Israeli trade secret holders seeking to benefit from the strong enforcement mechanisms available in U.S. courts, maintaining a clear nexus to U.S. commerce is essential. This could include having operations, subsidiaries, or commercial relationships within the United States. Such connections not only strengthen the legal basis for pursuing claims under the DTSA but also increase the likelihood of successful enforcement.”
