Some of the biggest headline trade secret cases with the biggest damages awards arise out of matters where a supplier alleges that a customer stole their trade secrets during the term of their relationship and developed a competing product. For the accused infringer, this can be a very frustrating and costly fight, especially when the accused infringer strongly believes they have independently developed a competing (and perhaps, superior) product. 

One of my biggest tips for companies thinking about developing a competing product is that the core members of the development team really should be engineers and managers who were not exposed to the technical details of the supplier's technology. Ideally, the “independent development” team has no ties to the supplier at all, but even in the case where there has been contact with the supplier, it's by far a best practice to select members to the “independent development” team who were not involved in the day-to-day workings with the supplier whose technology you're going to compete against. Having a truly “independent" team allows you to demonstrate that the ideas and implementation for your competing idea were truly your own and not copied from the supplier.

Subscribe to Farella Insights by topic and author here.

Carepoynt said Well Dot never intended to honor that three-year term. Instead, the company said, Well Dot used its contractual access to Carepoynt's platform and data to extract confidential information and reverse engineer Carepoynt's proprietary processes while simultaneously planning a financing round. After Well Dot closed that financing round in April 2025, Carepoynt said, Well Dot accelerated development of its own internal rewards program and began migrating customers off Carepoynt's system.

www.law360.com/...