N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:15-2

Section 56:15-2 requires a trade secret to have actual or potential independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and to be subject to reasonable efforts to keep it confidential.

VOORHEES v. TOLIA · filed 2020-03-17

The NJTSA defines “trade secret” as “information” that (1) “[d]erives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use,” and (2) that the holder reasonably endeavors to maintain as confidential. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:15-2. ... However, Plaintiff has provided no cognizable facts from which this Court could conclude or imply the alleged trade secrets had actual or potential economic value as contemplated by the NJTSA. While she claims Defendants are using her secrets, there are no facts that would enable the Court to establish an economic value to her secrets. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count One’s Trade Secret Acts claim is GRANTED.

Section 56:15-2 treats information as a trade secret only when it has independent economic value because it is not generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means, and the information must be identified with enough specificity to distinguish it from general trade knowledge.

Voorhees v. Tolia · filed 2023-07-20

The NJTSA defines a trade secret as information that, inter alia, “[d]erives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:15-2. ... To plead the existence of a trade secret, Voorhees had to “sufficiently identify the information [she] claims as a trade secret and allege facts supporting the assertion that the information is indeed protectible as such.” ... “[G]eneric allegations and general references to products or information are insufficient.”

Section 56:15-2 defines a trade secret as information deriving independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.

THOMAS v. KEOUGH · filed 2024-02-05

A “trade secret” is defined as “information” that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

Section 56:15-2 protects information that has independent economic value because it is not generally known or readily ascertainable and is subject to reasonable efforts to keep it secret.

Signet Media, Inc. v. LG Electronics · filed 2025-11-10

To establish a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, a plaintiff first must “sufficiently identify the information it claims as a trade secret and allege facts supporting the assertion that the information is indeed protectable as such.” ... Then, a court weighs (i) “whether the owner of the information has taken reasonable measures to keep it secret[;]” and (ii) “whether the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information.” ... Here, Plaintiff does not sufficiently plead a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets under the DTSA, NJTSA, or New Jersey common law. ... Plaintiff’s list of eleven alleged trade secrets, (see Am. Compl. ¶ 31), includes generic phrases that do not sufficiently “separate [the alleged trade secrets] from matters of general knowledge in the trade” such that Defendants could determine “the boundaries within which the secret lies,” ... At bottom, the technologies Plaintiff references appear to be matters of general knowledge in the trade—only preceded by adjectives like “customized,” “dynamic,” “non-standard,” and “proprietary.” ... Counts I II, and V of the Amended Complaint are therefore DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to replead the trade secrets at issue with more specificity.

Section 56:15-2 requires reasonable efforts to keep information secret; a proposal voluntarily shared without any indication of confidentiality does not qualify as a trade secret.

LASCH VS. STUART KOPERWEIS (L-3917-16, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) · filed 2019-05-31

Further, as plaintiff voluntarily provided a copy of the proposal to defendants, voluntarily explained her ideas, and did not indicate that the proposal should remain confidential, plaintiff's proposal does not qualify as a trade secret.

A complaint can sufficiently identify a trade secret under § 56:15-2 by pointing to a reasonably finite category of information containing the alleged secret.

OWAL, INC. v. CAREGILITY CORPORATION · filed 2022-03-25

Overall, OWAL points to a reasonably finite category of information as containing its trade secrets. As such, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts Three, Four, and Five of the Complaint is denied.

A compilation of client names, exhibition details, and financial projections can qualify as a trade secret even when some client names are public, if the compilation is not publicly ascertainable and is kept confidential.

ON LOCATION, INC. v. POPOVICH · filed 2023-03-29

While Defendant is correct that the names of some of On Location’s clients are listed on its website and discoverable through attendance at the events and trade shows, it is the compilation of all the clients into a single document alongside exhibition details and financial projections that makes this information non-discoverable to the public.

Section 56:15-2 requires proof that the claimed information is a trade secret; an unidentified process with no evidence of protection or disclosure does not establish misappropriation.

ALBEE v. ALBEE · filed 2024-02-14

There was no showing that the claimed process was in fact a trade secret belonging to AFI, no showing of what measures AFI took to protect them, and no showing that this claimed trade secret(s) was ever compromised, disclosed, or sold to anyone.

Section 56:15-2 requires reasonable measures to protect a trade secret, but does not require extraordinary safeguards.

CORPORATE SYNERGIES GROUP, LLC v. ANDREWS · filed 2019-08-12

Neither the DTSA nor the NJTSA require parties to take extraordinary measures to protect information; reasonable safeguards are appropriate.

Section 56:15-2 requires reasonable measures to keep information secret for it to qualify as a trade secret.

Sigma Corporation v. Island Industries, Inc. · filed 2023-02-28

For information to qualify as a trade secret, the plaintiff must have “taken reasonable measures to keep [the] information secret.” 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(A); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(4)(B); N.J. Stat. § 56:15-2. ... Plaintiff does not point to a single measure it took to protect its allegedly secret supplier list in its Complaint, and there are indications that it failed to take reasonable measures to protect this trade secret.

Section 56:15-2 excludes pricing and profit-margin information from trade-secret protection when it is readily ascertainable through proper business channels.

INTECH POWERCORE CORPORATION v. ALBERT HANDTMANN ELTEKA GMBH & CO. KG · filed 2021-03-24

Thus, as Defendant already knew the wholesale price, and could ask Fanuc for the product price, the Court is persuaded that Defendant could readily ascertain Plaintiff’s profit margin through proper business channels. Accordingly, there exists no genuine dispute of material fact to challenge the conclusion that Plaintiff’s pricing and profit margin are not trade secrets.

Section 56:15-2 does not treat a large collection of customer contact information as readily ascertainable as a matter of law merely because individual details could be gathered from directories and LinkedIn.

STERIS CORPORATION VS. DAVID SHANNON (C-000134-16, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) · filed 2019-06-10

While it is plausible that the names of the ... companies, their key contact employees' names, email addresses, and phone numbers could be collected from the industry's directories and LinkedIn, as defendant contends, we disagree that this vast collection of information should be considered, as a matter of law, "readily ascertainable," N.J.S.A. 56:15-2, or easily duplicated, Ingersoll-Rand Co., 110 N.J. at 637.

Section 56:15-2 requires a New Jersey Trade Secrets Act plaintiff to plead the existence of a trade secret and the misappropriation of that secret.

THE RODGERS GROUP, LLC v. LEWIS · filed 2022-09-07

Similarly, the NJTSA requires that a plaintiff plead “(1) the existence of a trade secret and (2) the misappropriation of that secret.” Par Pharm., Inc. v. QuVa Pharma, Inc., No. 17-6115, 2018 WL 1374023, at *6 (D.N.J. Mar. 16, 2018) (citing N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:15-2), Considering the parallel between the DTSA and NJTSA, the Court considers these two counts together.

Section 56:15-2 defines a trade secret as information with independent economic value that the owner reasonably keeps secret and defines misappropriation as knowing improper acquisition and use or disclosure of the secret.

POMPTONIAN FOOD SERVICE MANAGEMENT, INC. v. GRINBERG · filed 2025-01-21

Both the DTSA and the NTJSA require claimants to demonstrate “(i) the existence of a trade secret, defined broadly as information with independent economic value that the owner has taken reasonable measures to keep secret, and (ii) misappropriation of that secret, defined as the knowing improper acquisition and use or disclosure of the secret.”

Section 56:15-2 defines misappropriation largely in line with the DTSA, covering knowing improper acquisition, use, or disclosure of a trade secret.

FORA FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, LLC v. DREAM DATA SERVICES, LLC · filed 2023-09-15

The NJTSA’s definition of misappropriation largely tracks the one in the DISA. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 1839(5); with N.J, Stat. Ann. § 56:15-2; see also Oakwood, 999 F.3d at 905 n.11 (“Because the DTSA and the NJTSA are substantially similar... and... include identical or almost identical definitions for each statutory term at issue here, our analysis of the DTSA also applies to... the NJTSA.”).

Section 56:15-2 requires allegations identifying the trade secret and the information misappropriated; general allegations that customers were stolen and secrets disclosed are insufficient.

AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE COMPANY, LLC v. CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE, INC. · filed 2022-05-04

Absent from the Amended Complaint is any specificity as to what trade secrets existed or what information was misappropriated beyond the allegation that customers were stolen and trade secrets were disclosed.

Section 56:15-2(1) treats acquiring another’s trade secret as misappropriation when the acquirer knows or has reason to know it was obtained through improper means, and sending the secret to a personal email account can qualify.

LEGEND BIOTECH USA INC. v. LIU · filed 2024-03-04(1)

“The DTSA states that ‘misappropriation’ includes ‘acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means[.]’” ... A defendant sending trade secrets to their personal email account constitutes misappropriation. ... Based on Plaintiff’s allegations and proffered evidence of Defendant sending Plaintiff’s confidential information to his personal email account, the Court finds Plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing trade secret misappropriation and accordingly has shown a reasonable probability of satisfying the second prong of a DTSA and NJTSA claim.

Section 56:15-2 treats misappropriation as acquiring a trade secret by improper means, or using or disclosing it without consent when the actor knew or had reason to know of the improper acquisition or a duty to maintain secrecy.

ORIENT TURISTIK MAGAZACILIK SAN VE TIC LTD. STI v. AYTEK USA, INC. · filed 2025-05-13

Under the DTSA and NJTSA, misappropriation occurs where a person acquires a trade secret by improper means, or discloses or uses a trade secret without consent when they knew or had reason to know it was acquired by improper means, was subject to a duty to maintain its secrecy, or was obtained from someone who owed such a duty. 18 U.S.C. § 1839(5); N.J.S.A. 56:15-2; see also Austar Int’l Ltd. v. AustarPharma LLC, 425 F. Supp. 3d 336, 355 (D.N.J. 2019). Even assuming that Plaintiff had conclusively established that it took reasonable steps to maintain the secrecy of the Customer List, there are genuine issues of material fact as it relates to Aytek’s involvement in any misappropriation that the Individual Defendants may have committed.

A claim under § 56:15-2 is adequately pleaded when the complaint identifies proprietary technology, alleges efforts to keep it confidential, and supports an inference of misappropriation.

AUSTAR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. AUSTARPHARMA LLC · filed 2019-11-27

The NJTSA contains virtually identical definitions of trade secret, misappropriation, and improper means. N.J. Stat. Ann. 56:15-2. ... The complaint also sufficiently alleges that AustarPharma endeavored to keep information about these technologies confidential. Finally, the complaint alleges other facts giving rise to an inference of misappropriation. ... Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss these claims is denied.

A misappropriation claim under § 56:15-2 can survive dismissal when the complaint plausibly alleges a protected trade secret and its knowing improper acquisition or use.

PARAMOUNT RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. v. NATIONWIDE MORTGAGE BANKERS, INC. · filed 2023-05-31

The DTSA and NJTSA require a plaintiff to show “(1) the existence of a trade secret, defined broadly as information with independent economic value that the owner has taken reasonable measures to keep secret, and (2) misappropriation of that secret, defined as the knowing improper acquisition and use or disclosure of the secret.” ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled Misappropriation and Threatened Misappropriation of Trade Secrets in violation of the DTSA and NJTSA.

Section 56:15-2 requires proof that the defendant knew or had reason to know a trade secret was acquired through improper means, and a genuine dispute about that knowledge can preclude summary judgment.

Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. HQ Specialty Pharma Corp. · filed 2016-01-26

Whether [¶] had reason to know that Mr. Owoo was using trade secrets from Baxter, protected as such, in his proposal to and employment by HQ, remains to be determined at trial.

Section 56:15-2 defines misappropriation and improper means; taking trade secrets through theft or breach of a duty to maintain secrecy can support an improper acquisition claim.

BRAMSHILL INVESTMENTS LLC v. PULLEN · filed 2020-08-10

The NJTSA contains virtually identical definitions of “misappropriation” and “improper means.” See N.J.S.A. 56:15-2. ... After considering the allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds at this stage that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled its claims for misappropriation of trade secrets under the DTSA and NJTSA.

Section 56:15-2 defines misappropriation to include knowing acquisition by improper means or unauthorized disclosure or use; acquisition does not also require use or disclosure.

Marina District Development Company, LLC v. AC Ocean Walk, LLC · filed 2021-04-19(1)-(2)

The NJTSA similarly defines misappropriation, using almost identical language, as meaning “(1) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent of the trade secret owner by a person . . .” N.J.S.A. § 56:15-2(1)-(2).

Section 56:15-2 defines misappropriation to include disclosure or use of a trade secret when its conditions concerning improper acquisition or knowledge are met.

NASDAQ, INC. v. MIAMI INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC. · filed 2023-07-25

Accordingly, “disclosure or use of a trade secret” constitutes a misappropriation.

Section 56:15-2(2)(a) covers using or disclosing another’s trade secret without consent after obtaining it through improper means.

FREEDOM FUNDING GROUP, INC. v. THE FREEDOM FUNDINGGROUP L.L.C. · filed 2022-08-25(2)(a)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant Gordon disclosed or used Plaintiff’s trade secret without consent and obtained such information through improper means. See N.J.S.A. § 56:15-2(2)(a).