Emphasizing Particularity and Non-Ascertainability in Trade-Secret Claims under DTSA and OUTSA

Introduction

Double Eagle Alloys, Inc. v. Hooper, No. 24-5089 (10th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025), marks an important reaffirmation of the requirement that trade-secret plaintiffs must identify their alleged secrets with sufficient particularity and show that those particulars are not readily ascertainable by proper means. The dispute arose when Michael Hooper, after ten years with Double Eagle Alloys as Inside Sales Manager, joined rival Ace Alloys, LLC and downloaded 2,660 digital files containing Double Eagle’s internal business information—alleged “PSQ specifications,” pricing spreadsheets, and customer drawings. The district court granted summary judgment to Hooper and Ace Alloys on claims under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA, 18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq.), the Oklahoma Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA, Okla. Stat. tit. 78, § 86 et seq.), misappropriation of confidential business information, and civil conspiracy. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in full.

The key issues were:

Whether Double Eagle had “identified the alleged trade secrets with sufficient particularity” to survive summary judgment under the DTSA and OUTSA;
Whether its internal business information was sufficiently “confidential” to sustain a standalone misappropriation claim;
Whether any surviving tort claims supported a civil-conspiracy count.

Summary of the Judgment

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants on all counts. In brief:

The court held that a plaintiff under both the DTSA and OUTSA must describe “the subject matter of the trade secret with sufficient particularity” so that a defendant can marshal a rebuttal. Mere categories—“PSQ specifications,” “pricing,” “customer drawings”—without clear delineation of what is secret and what is not, fail that test. Double Eagle’s specifications closely matched publicly available or industry-wide standards; its pricing spreadsheets and margins were shared routinely with customers; its customer drawings were supplied by third‐party clients. In the absence of evidence that these items were uniquely held, guarded, or developed by Double Eagle, no reasonable jury could find them to be trade secrets.
For its misappropriation of confidential business information claim under Oklahoma common law, Double Eagle likewise offered no evidence that any of the downloaded material was “confidential” in the sense of being “the particular secrets of the employer as distinguished from the general secrets of the trade.” Routine sharing with customers and apparent public availability foreclosed any genuine issue of confidentiality.
The civil-conspiracy claim depended on an underlying tort; once all substantive claims fell, the conspiracy count had no support and was properly dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Southwest Stainless, LP v. Sappington (10th Cir. 2009): held that quoted prices disclosed to customers are not secret for trade-secret purposes.
InteliClear, LLC v. ETC Global Holdings (9th Cir. 2020): emphasized the “particularity” requirement in DTSA claims, rejecting hundreds of documents “incorporated by reference” as insufficient.
Central Plastics Co. v. Goodson (Okla. 1975): articulated the difference between “particular secrets of the employer” and “general secrets of the trade.”
American Biomedical Group, Inc. v. Techtrol, Inc. (Okla. 2016): explained that OUTSA displaces common-law trade-secret torts but preserves claims for confidential business information not rising to the level of a statutory trade secret.
IDX Systems Corp. v. Epic Systems Corp. (7th Cir. 2002): held that a plaintiff must go beyond naming a system and “hunt through the details” to identify the secret elements.

Legal Reasoning

The Tenth Circuit’s reasoning rests on two pillars:

1. Particularity in Identifying Trade Secrets

Under both the DTSA and OUTSA, a trade secret must:

“Derive independent economic value … from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by” others (18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(B); Okla. Stat. tit. 78, § 86(4)(a));
Be the “subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy” (id. § 1839(3)(A); § 86(4)(b)).

Equally important is the requirement that the plaintiff “describe the subject matter of the trade secret with sufficient particularity to separate it from matters of general knowledge in the trade.” InteliClear, 978 F.3d at 658. A laundry list—“PSQ specifications, pricing, margins, costs, and customer drawings”—without calling out which chemical‐composition ranges, which spreadsheet formulas, which internal algorithms, or which proprietary drawing-processing steps are at issue, leaves defendants (and courts) to “hunt” for what actually qualifies as secret. Facing dozens of near-identical competitor specifications and publicly posted data, Double Eagle could not meet this foundational burden.

2. Readily Ascertainable Information

Information that is:

Published on a company website,
Supplied to customers as part of routine business exchanges, or
Publicly circulating among industry peers

cannot be trade secret material unless the plaintiff shows that the public or competitors could not, by proper means, assemble the same data and derive the same specifications. Double Eagle’s two signature PSQ (pump-shaft-quality) alloy specifications (718 and K500) mirrored those of customers like Baker Hughes, Summit, and even Ace Alloys itself. Spreadsheets detailing surcharge, material, and machining costs were routinely shared in quotes. Customer drawings were drawn up, owned, and forwarded by outside clients. Without evidence of unique development, guarded storage, or non-public distribution protocols, there was no genuine issue for trial.

3. Misappropriation of Confidential Business Information

Under Oklahoma common law, “confidential business information” claims survive only if the plaintiff shows that the information was “the particular secrets of the employer” and not “readily available to competitors.” Central Plastics, 537 P.2d at 333–34. Double Eagle’s internal policies and broad non-disclosure statements did not transform publicly circulating data into confidential “crown jewels.” The same evidentiary gaps that doomed the trade-secret counts likewise foreclosed any standalone tort claim for misappropriation of business information.

Impact

This decision will guide practitioners and courts in the Tenth Circuit—and persuasively elsewhere—by reinforcing:

Strict Particularity: Trade-secret plaintiffs must pinpoint the exact strands of data, formula, or methodology claimed as secret. Broad categories or “incorporate by reference” approaches will not suffice at summary judgment.
Ascertainability Scrutiny: Courts will compare alleged secrets against industry norms, publicly posted materials, and customer disclosures to determine if the information is genuinely beyond proper reach.
Alignment of DTSA and UTSA Standards: Both federal and state acts share virtually identical definitions, so practitioners must maintain consistent diligence under either regime.
Robust Summary-Judgment Practice: Defendants can—and should—press challenges early when a plaintiff’s identification of secrets is vague or overlaps industry‐standard data.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Trade Secret: Any business, financial, or technical information that (a) is not generally known or easily discovered by competitors and (b) gives its owner an economic edge, provided the owner takes steps to keep it secret.
Particularity Requirement: At summary judgment, a plaintiff must describe with precision—“this formula,” “these steps,” “this spreadsheet cell”—the very heart of the secret. Otherwise, the defendant cannot prepare a targeted defense.
Readily Ascertainable: If a competitor could, by legitimate research, public filings, customer interviews or reverse-engineering, arrive at the same information, it is not protected as a trade secret.
Misappropriation of Confidential Business Information: A standalone tort (outside statutory trade-secret law) that protects internal data “peculiar” to one business, so long as it remains confidential and not merely general industry know-how.
Civil Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more parties to commit an underlying tort. Without an actionable tort (e.g., trade-secret misappropriation), the conspiracy claim collapses.

Conclusion

Double Eagle Alloys v. Hooper underlines a fundamental lesson for trade-secret litigation: precision matters. Plaintiffs must not only assert that “some data” was taken—they must spell out exactly which data, explain how it is unique to them, and establish that it cannot be pieced together by proper means. Equally, routine customer disclosures and industry-standard specifications erode claims of secrecy. The Tenth Circuit’s ruling confirms that summary judgment is a potent tool to weed out overbroad or under-substantiated trade-secret demands, ensuring that only truly secret, systematically protected intellectual property proceeds to trial.