Overview

• A Ninth Circuit panel reversed a district court order that struck nine of eleven alleged trade secrets in Quintara Biosciences v. Ruifeng Biztech, finding Rule 12(f) did not authorize the strike and dismissal sanctions under Rules 16 and 26 were improper.
• The court held that, unlike California’s CUTSA and CCP §2019.210, the federal DTSA does not require pre‑discovery identification of trade secrets with reasonable particularity.
• The panel explained that whether a DTSA plaintiff has identified a trade secret with sufficient particularity is a fact question to be resolved after targeted discovery at summary judgment or trial.
• The reversal followed a trial and a defense verdict, underscoring that striking alleged trade secrets before discovery was error regardless of the verdict.
• Legal analyses forecast more DTSA‑only filings in federal court and broader, costlier discovery, with defendants turning to phased discovery, summary judgment, and evidentiary exclusion to challenge vague or shifting identifications.