Hardwire v. Freyssinet — Trade-Secret Limitations Questions Remain for the Jury

Background

Hardwire accused Freyssinet of participating with a former Hardwire employee in misappropriating proprietary information. Freyssinet sought reconsideration after the court denied summary judgment on claims under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, Maryland trade-secret law, RICO, contract, fraud, and civil-conspiracy theories.

The dispute focused on when Hardwire’s claims accrued. Hardwire suspected the former employee by 2015, hired forensic investigators, contacted the FBI, and reviewed thousands of recovered files, but said it did not learn of Freyssinet’s alleged involvement until a November 2020 document production.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Frederic Block granted reconsideration only to clarify the legal standard. The limitations clock does not await discovery of every responsible party. Hardwire knew of its alleged trade-secret injury by 2015, which triggered a duty to investigate.

That clarification did not entitle Freyssinet to summary judgment. A plaintiff on inquiry notice is charged only with what a reasonably diligent investigation would have uncovered. Evidence that Hardwire used forensic experts, cooperated with investigators, and reviewed recovered files could support diligence. Evidence that Freyssinet characterized the former employee as an outside subcontractor and withheld details of their arrangement could support fraudulent concealment. A jury must decide whether reasonable diligence would have exposed Freyssinet’s alleged role sooner and whether concealment tolled the limitations period.

Key Takeaways

• Trade-secret claim accrual turns on notice of injury, not identification of every alleged participant.
• Inquiry notice triggers investigation but does not automatically impute facts that diligence might not reveal.
• Diligence and fraudulent concealment are often fact questions unsuitable for summary judgment.

Why It Matters

Companies investigating suspected insider theft should document forensic steps, referrals, and follow-up work. That record can determine whether claims against later-discovered collaborators survive limitations defenses, while defendants’ incomplete explanations may support tolling based on concealment.