Possessing Versus Owning Trade Secrets May Be Enough to Support a Claim Under the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act
Bayan Biazar, Associate
In Snyder v. Beam Technologies, Inc.,[1] the Tenth Circuit clarified the distinction between “ownership” and “possession” under federal and state trade secret laws. The Court held that while only an “owner” of a trade secret may bring a claim under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) may allow a lawful “possessor” of a trade secret to bring suit. Even so, the Court affirmed that a plaintiff must still demonstrate that reasonable measures were taken to maintain secrecy—an element that Plaintiff, John Snyder (“Snyder”) failed to establish.
Background of the Case
Snyder was hired by Beam Technologies, Inc. (“Beam”) in August of 2018 as a Regional Director of Broker Success. Before joining Beam, Snyder worked for Guardian Life Insurance Company (“Guardian”), where he accessed a national customer list (the “List”) of over 40,000 insurance broker names. Snyder downloaded the List from Guardian’s internal system into an Excel spreadsheet and emailed it to his personal email from his Guardian work email.
After leaving Guardian, Snyder accepted a position with Beam. He claimed that Beam offered to compensate him “off the books” if he disclosed the List. Snyder attempted to create three state-specific versions of the List for use and disclosure to Beam but inadvertently included the full List as a hidden tab in the three spreadsheets which he circulated to Beam employees.
The Court’s Ruling
The District Court granted summary judgment for Beam, finding that Snyder did not provide sufficient evidence showing that he “owned” the List, which the District Court treated as a necessary element for his federal misappropriation claim under DTSA and his state misappropriation claim under CUTSA. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit agreed that “ownership” is a necessary element for a plaintiff to maintain a claim under DTSA. However, the Tenth Circuit noted that under CUTSA, a plaintiff’s “possession” of a trade secret or confidential information, may allow for a claim to move forward. Thus, the Court declined to affirm the District Court’s entry of summary judgment against Snyder on his CUTSA claim.
Regardless of this distinction, the Court affirmed summary judgment against Snyder on the grounds that Snyder failed to show that he took reasonable measures or efforts to maintain the secrecy of the List when he disclosed it, a requirement under both DTSA and CUTSA for a trade secret to maintain its protected status. The Court went on to find that even after Snyder disclosed the List, which in itself did not automatically defeat its trade secret protection, Snyder’s failure to take affirmative steps to safeguard the information and mitigate the “blast radius” of the disclosure amplified his failure to take reasonable measures or efforts to maintain secrecy.
Employer Considerations
For employers, Snyder v. Beam Technologies underscores that trade secret protection depends as much on proactive conduct as on ownership. Companies should clearly establish that proprietary materials—such as client lists, pricing data, and internal workflows—belong to the organization through written agreements and confidentiality acknowledgments. Equally important is demonstrating that reasonable steps were taken to preserve secrecy, including limiting access, using digital safeguards, and documenting confidentiality practices. These actions not only strengthen claims under DTSA but also ensure that trade secret status is not lost through inaction.
The decision also highlights that disclosure, by itself, does not automatically destroy trade secret protection. Rather, an employer’s response to a potential breach—its efforts to contain the “blast radius”—often determines whether the information remains protected. Employers should act swiftly when a disclosure occurs, revoke access, and implement remedial measures. Finally, businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions should recognize that while DTSA limits claims to “owners,” CUTSA may extend protection to lawful “possessors.” Clear ownership designations and timely enforcement remain the best tools to preserve trade secret rights. Campbell Litigation is available to consult with employers on best practices for protecting trade secrets and safeguarding proprietary information.
[1] See Snyder v. Beam Technologies, Inc., 147 F.4th 1246 (10th Cir. 2025).