New Jersey Adopts the Uniform Trade Secrets Act
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.31.12
On January 9, 2012, Governor Chris Christie signed into law the New Jersey Trade Secrets Act ("NJTSA"), which is modeled after the Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA"). New Jersey joins 45 other states and the District of Columbia in enacting a trade secret statute modeled on the UTSA.
The NJTSA generally follows the UTSA, but with a few key differences.
- The NJTSA defines a "trade secret" more broadly than the UTSA, and extends protection to various other forms in which trade secrets can exist, including a "design, diagram, drawing, invention, plan, procedure, [or] prototype."
- The NJTSA augments, rather than displaces, New Jersey common law remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.
- The NJTSA is silent as to whether courts must seek uniformity with other states applying the UTSA.
- The NJTSA provides greater clarity about the conduct that may give rise to a trade secrets claim, by expressly distinguishing between "proper" and "improper" means of obtaining trade secrets. Under the NJTSA, acquiring a trade secret by independent invention, reverse engineering, a license, published literature, or public observation is a complete defense.
- The NJTSA provides a presumption in favor of granting protective orders to preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret during litigation.
Only four states remain without a statute modeled after the UTSA – Massachusetts, North Carolina, New York, and Texas.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
