Terran Biosciences, Inc. v. Compass Pathfinder Limited
1:22-cv-01956
D. MarylandJun 3, 2025Background
- Terran Biosciences, the University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB), and Dr. Thompson allege Compass Pathfinder Limited misappropriated their trade secrets regarding the use of psilocybin and 5-HT2A antagonists to create a non-hallucinogenic antidepressant therapy.
- Plaintiffs claim Compass fraudulently obtained confidential research, then filed patent applications incorporating the alleged trade secrets without proper authorization.
- The litigation involves multiple amended complaints and several causes of action, most notably under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA).
- The key dispute here is Compass’s pre-discovery motion to require plaintiffs to identify their trade secrets with greater specificity before discovery.
- Plaintiffs argued their Third Amended Complaint already identified the trade secrets with sufficient detail (i.e., sequential administration of ketanserin and psilocybin and the related parameters) for notice purposes.
- The Court considered whether more detailed pre-discovery trade secret identification should be compelled, ultimately denying Compass’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs must identify alleged trade secrets with more particularity pre-discovery | Plaintiffs' complaint already identifies trade secrets with sufficient particularity; further detail not required at this stage | Trade secret description is too generic; plaintiffs must specify parameters (e.g., exact timing, dose, frequency) before discovery | Court denied the motion, finding plaintiffs' descriptions reasonably particular for this stage |
| Whether lack of specificity prejudices defendant in preparing a defense | Denial argued—Compass given sufficient notice, can seek clarification through standard discovery | Defended—Vague claims allow plaintiffs to adapt theory after accessing Compass's information | Court found Compass had enough notice; additional detail could be sought in discovery |
| If a merits argument (whether information is a trade secret) can be resolved at this stage | Matter not for pre-discovery procedure—merits to be decided later | Asserted alleged trade secrets are already public, thus not protectable | Court declined to decide merits pre-discovery; would not resolve substantive existence of trade secret now |
| Appropriateness of case law compelling pre-discovery trade secret identification | Some case law supports flexibility/discretion; combination trade secrets may not require minute details initially | Cited cases/states requiring pre-discovery specificity for trade secrets | Court exercised discretion, found plaintiffs met standard for now |
Key Cases Cited
- dmarcian, Inc. v. dmarcian Eur. BV, 60 F.4th 119 (4th Cir. 2023) (discussing elements of a DTSA trade secret misappropriation claim)
- Oakwood Labs. LLC v. Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892 (3d Cir. 2021) (federal standard for trade secret existence under DTSA)
- Engelhard Corp. v. Savin Corp., 505 A.2d 30 (Del. Ch. 1986) (requiring reasonable particularity for trade secret identification pre-discovery)
- AAR Mfg., Inc. v. Matrix Composites, Inc., 98 So. 3d 186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) (pre-discovery identification requirements)
- Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co. Inc., 148 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (specificity in identifying trade secrets for litigation)