Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

The Secret to Success with Trade Secrets – 5 Factors That Litigation Funders Should Consider When Evaluating Trade Secrets Cases

February 14, 2023

The Secret to Success with Trade Secrets – 5 Factors That Litigation Funders Should Consider When Evaluating Trade Secrets Cases

The following article is a contribution from Ben Quarmby and Jonathan E. Barbee, Partner and Counsel at MoloLamken LLP, respectively.  Litigation funders have trade secrets on their minds.  Since the introduction of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) in 2016, trade secrets litigation has been on the rise.  Over a thousand trade secrets cases were filed in federal court in both 2021 and 2022.  By all accounts, that trend is set to continue.  Big verdicts have followed, with some trade secrets verdicts now rivaling the biggest patent verdicts.  In the information age, a company’s most valuable intellectual property may not be its patents after all, but the wealth of non-patented, proprietary information surrounding its ideas—its trade secrets. Trade secrets cases can be more attractive to litigation funders than patent cases.  The funding of patent deals is regularly scuttled by patent expirations, validity concerns (especially Section 101 patent eligibility concerns), the threat of inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the perceived focus of the Federal Circuit on reversing the largest patent verdicts that come before it.  Trade secrets side-step many of these issues.  They do not expire.  They are less likely to be sunk by an obscure prior art reference.  They are not subject to IPR proceedings.  And they are generally not subject to scrutiny by the Federal Circuit.  They also offer many of the same benefits to plaintiffs as patent cases: they too can be rooted in invention stories that will resonate with juries and lead to exemplary damages. They offer their own challenges, of course.  Unlike patent cases, there is no “innocent” misappropriation with trade secrets.  A defendant must often come into contact with the plaintiff’s trade secrets for a claim to arise.  Successful trade secret claims usually require a chain of events that put the trade secrets in the hands of the defendant.  Patent plaintiffs do not face those hurdles. Finding promising trade secrets cases requires identifying the types of companies that will regularly find themselves in situations that lead to trade secret misappropriation: joint ventures, startups seeking investment by larger industry players, acquisition targets, and companies operating in industries with high employee turnover and mobility.  And once those cases are found, performing due diligence on them requires a very specific type of focus. The following steps are critical:
  • Identify the Trade Secrets. Ensure at the outset that there are clean, concrete, and well-defined trade secrets to assert.  In some jurisdictions, plaintiffs must identify their trade secrets before proceeding with discovery—failure to do so with sufficient precision can stop the litigation dead in its tracks.  If plaintiffs can clearly identify the form of the trade secrets (e.g., scientific data, customer lists, product recipes, hard copy documents, etc.), the chain of custody for those trade secrets, and any changes made to the trade secrets over time, their case is far more likely to withstand the test of litigation.
  • Verify the Plaintiff’s Protective Measures. Defendants will generally argue that a plaintiff has not taken adequate steps to protect its trade secrets.  You need a clean and clear story to tell about the steps a plaintiff has taken to protect its intellectual property.  Tangible evidence of such steps—company policies, firewalls, passwords—is invaluable.  And there should be a narrow or controlled universe of third parties—if any—with whom the information has been shared.  Each additional third party with access to the information can increase the uncertainty surrounding the trade secrets and affect the value of the case.
  • Estimate the Value of Trade Secrets. Calculating damages in trade secrets cases can be trickier than in patent cases.  It is harder to find comparable licenses or valuations for similar types of trade secrets since trade secrets are just that—secret.  There are also fewer established damages methodologies in trade secrets cases.  While this allows for more flexibility and creativity in crafting a damages theory, it can also make trade secret damages susceptible to challenges.  The Georgia-Pacific factors used so often in patent cases can help determine reasonable royalty rates in trade secrets cases, but courts have yet to adopt those factors as the definitive standard for trade secrets.  In conducting due diligence, hire a damages expert to estimate the value of trade secrets before filing a case.
  • Assess the Value of Injunctive Relief. Trade secrets cases are often better candidates for injunctive relief than patent cases.  Determine the strength of a case’s injunctive relief prospects early on.  The likelihood of injunctive relief has to be factored into the economic value of a trade secrets case, since it will directly impact the likelihood of early settlement.
  • Determine the Narrative. Storytelling matters in every IP case.  But it perhaps matters in trade secrets cases even more so.  It is imperative to have reliable witnesses who can illustrate the plaintiff’s narrative in a compelling and clean way.  Test the potential witnesses before considering funding.  Let them tell their story—and challenge that story—under conditions that will most closely approximate those at trial.  Attractive cases should tell a persuasive story about how the trade secrets reflect plaintiffs’ know-how, experience, and competitive edge, and also expose the motives for defendants to steal those trade secrets.
These considerations are a starting point.  Due diligence should be tailored to the particular facts and nuances of each potential trade secrets case.  Careful consideration of these factors will help ensure that funders make the wisest investments, while avoiding common pitfalls in trade secrets litigation.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Jonathan Sablone Launches Sablone Advisory LLC, a Boutique Law and Advisory Firm Focused on Litigation Finance

By John Freund |

Jonathan Sablone, a commercial disputes attorney with three decades of cross-border, financial services, and litigation finance experience, has launched Sablone Advisory LLC — a Boston-based boutique positioned to serve claimants, funders, and insurers across the legal finance ecosystem under the tagline "at the intersection of law and finance™."

According to Sablone Advisory LLC, the new firm offers underwriting, diligence, monitoring, and asset management services to litigation funders and to insurers offering contingent risk products. On the claimant side, Sablone Advisory works with plaintiffs and their counsel to position cases for funding, including packaging case portfolios for cross-collateralized funding and insurance wrappers — services that have become increasingly central as funders and insurers structure deals across multiple matters and risk layers.

"I founded Sablone Advisory to assist clients with the most intractable problems and issues facing the legal finance industry," said Sablone in announcing the launch. "'At the intersection of law and finance' is not just a slogan, but a practical, commercial approach to legal problem-solving that I have practiced for decades."

The launch reflects a continuing trend in the litigation finance industry: senior practitioners with capital-markets and complex-litigation backgrounds spinning out of large institutional platforms to offer specialized, independent advisory and underwriting services. As funders increasingly structure portfolio-level deals, layer ATE and contingent risk insurance into capital stacks, and pursue cross-border recoveries, demand for senior independent diligence and asset management — particularly from professionals fluent in both legal strategy and structured finance — has grown.

For claimants and their counsel, the firm's case-positioning services are likely to resonate in a market where funders are increasingly selective about case quality, structure, and counsel pedigree. For funders and insurers, an independent boutique offering monitoring and asset management — separate from origination — represents the kind of service-provider infrastructure that more mature alternative-asset markets typically develop as they scale.

Inquiries can be directed to Jonathan Sablone at jsablone@sabloneadvisory.com or via www.sabloneadvisory.com.

Commercial

Colorado HB 1421 Targets PE and Non-Attorney Funding of Law Firms in Bipartisan Push

By John Freund |

Colorado lawmakers have introduced HB 1421, a bill that would sharply restrict the ability of state law firms to enter financial or contractual arrangements with alternative business structures (ABS) and any entity in which non-attorneys hold ownership stakes or exert direction over legal practice. The bill is notable both for the reach of its restrictions and for the unusual coalition behind it.

As reported by The Sum and Substance, the legislation is sponsored by Democratic Rep. Javier Mabrey of Denver and Republican House Minority Leader Jarvis Caldwell of Monument, with active support from the Colorado Chamber of Commerce and the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association — typically opposing forces in business-litigation policy debates. The bill was scheduled for its first hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on April 29.

HB 1421 would prohibit Colorado law firms from entering arrangements with ABS-style structures relating to legal services, practicing in professional companies where non-lawyers own interests or direct lawyer judgment, or compensating any party where compensation depends on a percentage of legal fees or case recoveries. The bill would also empower courts to halt offending arrangements, order fee reimbursement to clients, and disgorge ABS profits derived from prohibited activities. The article specifically references Burford Capital's litigation funding presence in framing the bill's broader policy concern with non-lawyer financial stakes in legal outcomes.

The legislation lands at a moment when private equity ownership of legal services is expanding rapidly in jurisdictions that permit it — Arizona, Utah, and the District of Columbia — and where PE-backed national platforms are increasingly partnering with firms in non-ABS jurisdictions to extend their operating reach. The Colorado bill, if enacted, would cut against that expansion model by restricting how Colorado firms can collaborate with out-of-state, non-attorney-owned platforms.

For the litigation finance community, the bill is a meaningful data point. Although disclosure-based reform has dominated state-level TPLF debate in 2025-26, HB 1421 reflects a parallel and somewhat different policy thrust: not transparency about funding, but structural limits on the ownership and economic relationships that surround legal practice. The convergence of plaintiffs' bar and chamber-of-commerce support behind a single bill is itself rare, and may presage similar coalitions in other non-ABS states facing PE-driven consolidation pressure.

Commercial

Triple-I Tracks the State-Level Wave of Third-Party Litigation Funding Reform

By John Freund |

A new Triple-I research piece outlines the rapidly expanding state-level reform agenda targeting third-party litigation funding, with disclosure mandates, foreign-funder bans, and registration regimes advancing in legislatures across the country as federal action remains slower-moving.

According to Triple-I's Lewis Nibbelin, Georgia led the most consequential 2025 round of reform with legislation requiring litigation financiers to register with the Department of Banking and Finance and prohibiting funder influence over case outcomes — measures that Triple-I links to subsequent auto insurance rate reductions and dividends to Georgia drivers. Louisiana followed with its widely covered Department of Insurance partnership with the NICB and 4WARN to combat TPLF marketing tactics, alongside legislation requiring attorneys to disclose TPLF contracts within 30 days of retainer or funding execution.

Other states are moving in parallel. Mississippi's new law, effective July 1, mandates disclosure of foreign litigation funding to address concerns about exploitation by non-U.S. entities. Utah passed comparable restrictions in March 2026. Michigan's House committee bill — already covered in LFJ — would ban foreign TPLF entirely while requiring disclosure and registration of all funders. Missouri, Tennessee, and Ohio are advancing similar foreign-funding bans, with the Tennessee and Ohio bills already passing their respective state Houses.

The piece references a joint NICB/4WARN study quantifying the scale of the consumer-facing TPLF market: $380 million in online search advertising between June 2024 and June 2025, and 27.8 million clicks to TPLF websites in June 2025 alone. Triple-I cites broader tort cost figures from the Perryman Group and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse — including $35.8 billion in direct annual losses and roughly $600 per U.S. household — to frame the policy stakes.

Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Tim Temple, quoted in the piece, framed the partnership as protecting citizens "from opportunists who manipulate the claims process to fuel excessive litigation, which is a primary driver of our high insurance costs." For commercial litigation funders, the rapid proliferation of state-level disclosure and foreign-funder-ban regimes represents a meaningful compliance overlay — particularly for cross-border deals and structured funding vehicles where investor identity, jurisdiction, and reporting timing now vary materially by state.