## Facts

- Plastronics Socket Partners Limited and Plastronics H-Pin Limited made semiconductor test equipment, including burn-in sockets and related components.
- Two former Plastronics employees, Dong Weon (Dongweon) Hwang and Paul Shubring, had access to Plastronics’s proprietary technical and business information during their employment.
- Hwang and Shubring signed nondisclosure agreements governing use and disclosure of confidential information.
- After leaving, Hwang and Shubring formed or joined competing ventures, including Highrel Incorporated and Hicon USA LLC.
- Plastronics sued for patent infringement and for misappropriation of trade secrets under Arizona’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (AUTSA).
- The operative First Amended Complaint identified 53 broad categories of “confidential information” but did not specify the particular information allegedly taken, why it qualified as a trade secret, or how it was misappropriated.

## Issues

1. Whether an AUTSA misappropriation claim satisfies Rule 8 and Twombly/Iqbal when it identifies only broad categories of confidential information and largely recites statutory definitions.
2. Whether allegations that former employees had access to confidential information and later competed plausibly plead “misappropriation” without factual detail tying specific secrets to specific acts of acquisition, disclosure, or use.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to dismiss the AUTSA trade-secret misappropriation claim under Rule 12(b)(6) based on inadequate factual pleading.
- The court held that listing generalized categories of information and repeating statutory elements did not provide fair notice or plausibly allege the existence and misappropriation of specific trade secrets.
- The dismissal was without prejudice, and Plastronics was permitted to amend to plead greater specificity.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 8 and Twombly/Iqbal, a complaint must plead enough nonconclusory facts to make entitlement to relief plausible; element-by-element recitations and “naked assertions” are insufficient.
- An AUTSA misappropriation claim must plausibly allege (1) the existence of a trade secret (including secrecy-based value and reasonable secrecy measures) and (2) misappropriation (improper acquisition, disclosure, or use).
- Trade-secret plaintiffs need not publicly disclose sensitive details at the pleading stage, but must describe the subject matter with sufficient particularity to distinguish it from general industry knowledge and to permit a plausibility assessment.
- Courts may address confidentiality concerns through procedural tools (e.g., protective orders and sealed filings) rather than allowing purely abstract trade-secret allegations.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Plastronics’s AUTSA claim because the complaint’s broad, categorical descriptions and conclusory assertions did not plausibly identify specific trade secrets or explain how defendants misappropriated them, while allowing amendment to replead with adequate factual detail.


Plastronics Socket Partners Ltd. v. Highrel Inc., No. CV-18-04140-PHX-SMB, 2019 WL 2054362 (D. Ariz. May 9, 2019)