The "inevitable disclosure" doctrine permits the plaintiff in a trade secrets case to establish threatened misappropriation by showing that the defendant's new employment will inevitably lead the defendant to rely on the plaintiff's trade secrets. In the seminal case that articulated this doctrine, the court enjoined the defendant from working for the competitor because "there is a high degree of probability of inevitable and immediate . use of . trade secrets."1
The doctrine is controversial because it potentially "requires a court to recognize and enforce a de facto noncompetition agreement to which the former employee is bound, even where no express agreement exists."3 Accordingly, "the inevitable disclosure doctrine treads an exceedingly narrow path through judicially disfavored territory."3
One federal court surveyed state trade secret laws in 2019 and concluded that 17 states appear to have adopted the inevitable disclosure doctrine in one form or another: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Washington. It concluded that five states appear to have rejected the doctrine: California, Colorado, Louisiana, Maryland and Virginia.4 The other 28 states have not yet taken a position on the doctrine.
Since then, a Florida federal court has indicated that Florida has not adopted or declined to adopt the inevitable disclosure doctrine.5 And an Oregon federal court has opined that Oregon would be...
