Draft Complaint

---
name: draft-complaint-trade-secret-misappropriation
task_id: intellectual-property/draft-complaint
description: Federal complaint for trade secret misappropriation and related claims, plus a strategic memo flagging anticipated defenses and litigation concerns, based on forensic and employment documentation.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Draft Federal Complaint for Trade Secret Misappropriation

## 1. Subject-matter triage (only if applicable)

- Treat this as a two-output task: a filed-style federal complaint is the primary deliverable; the strategic memo is secondary and must not displace the complaint.
- Identify the forum, governing law, and available causes of action before drafting; if the source set spans multiple jurisdictions or multiple defendants, sort them into a clean litigation theory rather than blending them.
- Where the record supports emergency relief, frame the complaint to support TRO/preliminary injunction pleading, but do not assume entitlement without facts showing imminent, irreparable harm.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Pleading trade secret claims in generic “confidential information” terms instead of identifying the information categories with enough specificity to survive early dismissal and preserve discovery scope.
- Omitting the federal trade secret claim or failing to pair it with any viable state-law trade secret theory, which can narrow remedies and leave gaps if one theory is challenged.
- Missing contract-based claims arising from employment agreements, confidentiality covenants, invention assignment terms, computer-use restrictions, or return-of-property obligations.
- Failing to align forensic facts with pleaded elements, leaving alleged exfiltration, access, or misuse disconnected from the actual trade secret categories.
- Drafting the complaint without anticipating defenses the defendant is likely to raise, such as public availability, inadequate secrecy measures, independent development, lack of use, preemption, overbreadth of restraints, or jurisdictional objections.
- Substituting narrative for element-by-element pleading, especially where the complaint needs to show misappropriation, reasonable secrecy measures, and harm.
- Omitting a separate advisory memo that flags strategic risks, litigation timing, and provisional-relief issues.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- Federal trade secret claim: apply the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, and plead interstate or foreign commerce nexus, existence of a trade secret, reasonable measures to maintain secrecy, and misappropriation by acquisition, disclosure, or use without consent.
- State trade secret claim: plead the applicable state trade secret statute where it provides parallel or supplementary relief; many jurisdictions track the Uniform Trade Secrets Act framework.
- Common pleading standard: factual allegations must satisfy the governing federal pleading rule and plausibility standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), as interpreted by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
- Contract claims: plead breach of contract where the employment agreement contains confidentiality, non-solicit, non-compete, invention assignment, device access, or return-of-materials provisions, subject to the governing state contract law.
- Injunctive relief: plead irreparable harm, inadequacy of legal remedies, balance of equities, and public interest under the applicable equitable standard, and tailor the requested relief to the specific trade secret categories.
- Forensic allegations: tie device images, access logs, email forwarding, downloads, cloud-sync activity, USB events, deletion, forwarding, or unusual access patterns to the pleaded trade secret set.
- Particularity convention: identify trade secrets by category and function, not by vague labels; plead enough detail to distinguish protected know-how from general skill, market knowledge, or public information.
- Remedies: include compensatory damages, unjust enrichment or reasonable royalty where available, exemplary/punitive relief if authorized, attorneys’ fees where statutorily allowed, and specific injunctive and return-up relief.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

- Trade secret inventory: isolate each distinct secret category from the source materials; test whether each is actually secret, economically valuable, and the subject of reasonable secrecy measures before including it.
- Element mapping: for each claim, map facts to every statutory or common-law element; do not rely on a single “misappropriation” paragraph to carry the count.
- Secrecy measures: plead the concrete protections used by the plaintiff, such as access controls, password protections, need-to-know restrictions, confidentiality obligations, device policies, labeling, and exit procedures.
- Misappropriation theory: identify whether the facts support acquisition, disclosure, use, or threatened use, and connect each theory to a factual anchor.
- Employment breach theory: identify the exact contractual promise, the breaching conduct, and the resulting harm; separate confidentiality, loyalty, return-of-property, and restrictive-covenant theories if they are supported.
- Defense preview: test the complaint against likely attacks on secrecy, preemption, reasonableness of restraints, standing, forum, and temporal scope.
- Relief strategy: if emergency relief is plausible, draft facts that support immediacy and irreparable injury, and align the requested injunction with the pleaded trade secrets rather than broad business restrictions.
- Memo planning: use the memo to surface strategic concerns, evidentiary gaps, sequencing issues, and any need for pre-suit preservation or device-return demands.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable)

- If multiple actors are involved, distinguish the employee, recipient, competing business, and any intermediary by role and conduct; avoid collapsing distinct conduct into one undifferentiated narrative.
- If the source set includes a timeline, plead chronology in a way that shows access first, suspicious activity next, resignation or termination next, and competitive or disclosure conduct after that, where the facts support such sequencing.
- If the complaint depends on several trade secret categories, track each category through access, exfiltration, and use rather than assuming a single act proves all categories.
- If contract and trade secret theories overlap, explain the overlap once and avoid duplicative factual repetition that obscures which facts support which count.
- If emergency relief is sought, separate past misappropriation from continuing threat and explain why future harm is likely absent court intervention.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Complaint: use a federal complaint format with caption, parties, jurisdiction and venue, factual allegations, counts, prayer for relief, jury demand if appropriate, and signature block.
- Counts: organize causes of action in clean, conventional counts; plead federal, state, and contract theories only where the facts support each one.
- Factual section: lead with a concise business-and-relationship overview, then secrecy measures, then defendant access, then suspicious conduct, then harm and threatened harm.
- Prayer for relief: request only remedies supported by the pleaded facts and governing law, including injunctive, monetary, exemplary, fee-shifting, and possession/return relief where available.
- Strategic memo: present anticipated defenses, evidentiary and timing risks, venue and jurisdiction issues, provisional-relief considerations, and recommended pre-filing or early-case actions.
- In the memo, make recommendations in imperative form and tie each one to a responsible actor and timing anchor when the source materials supply one.
- Cite controlling authority for each legal proposition relied on, including the pleading standard, trade secret statute, contract doctrine, and injunction standard; do not leave legal conclusions uncited.
- Before finishing, verify that the complaint is complete as a standalone filing and that the separate memo addresses litigation strategy rather than repeating the complaint.