UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORP. v. LIQUIDIA TECHS., INC., 2025 NCBC 37

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DURHAM COUNTY
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
21CVS004094-310
UNITED THERAPEUTICS
CORPORATION and LUNG
BIOTECHNOLOGY PBC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
and ROBERT ROSCIGNO,
Defendants.
ORDER AND OPINION ON
DEFENDANT LIQUIDIA
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[PUBLIC]1
1. 	Dr. Robert Roscigno (Roscigno) spent a decade working with United
Therapeutics 	Corporation 	(UTC) 	to 	develop 	a 	therapy 	for 	pulmonary 	arterial
hypertension (PAH) using the drug treprostinil. 	When he resigned in June 2007,
UTC alleges that he left with a number of documents that UTC contends contain
trade secrets chronicling its drug development efforts. 	Some eight years later
Roscigno joined a competitor, Liquidia Technologies, Inc. (Liquidia), to lead that
company in its development of an inhaled treprostinil treatment for PAH. 	UTC
alleges that Roscigno used its trade secrets while employed by Liquidia, giving
Liquidia an impermissible head start in its drug development efforts. Liquidia now
moves for summary judgment arguing, among other things, that the documents at
1 Because certain materials referenced in this Order and Opinion were filed under seal, the
Court’s ruling was provisionally filed under seal on 23 July 2025. The Court then permitted
counsel for the parties to confer and advise the Court whether they contend any matters
referenced herein should be sealed. Having afforded the parties this opportunity, the Court
now files its Order and Opinion on the public record.
United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., Inc., 2025 NCBC 37.

issue do not contain trade secrets. (Liquidia Technologies, Inc’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Motion], (ECF No. 284).)
2. 	Having considered the Motion, the related briefing, the arguments of
counsel at a hearing on the Motion, and other appropriate matters of record, the
Court concludes that the Motion should be DENIED.
Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P, by Eric M.
David, Jim W. Phillips, Jr., Kasi W. Robinson, and Sarah N. Schiavone;
McDermott Will & Emery LLP, by Douglas H. Carsten, Arthur P.
Dykhuis, 	Katherine 	Pappas, 	Joshua Revilla, 	Courtney 	Seams, 	and
Lillian J. Spetrino; and Goodwin Proctor LLP, by William C. Jackson,
for Plaintiffs United Therapeutics Corporation and Lung Biotechnology
PBC.
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by Stephen V. Carey, Corri A.
Hopkins, and Andrew P. Tabeling; and Cooley, LLP, by Jonathan
Davies, Sanya Sukduang, Lauren Strosnick, Adam Pivovar, Rachel L.
Preston, Phillip Morton, Daniel Knauss, and Kyung Taeck Minn, for
Defendant Liquidia Technologies, Inc.
McGuireWoods LLP, by David E. Finkelson, Miles O. Indest, Mark E.
Anderson, Corrine S. Hockman, and Kyle S. Smith, for Defendant Robert
Roscigno.
Earp, Judge.
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. 	The Court does not make findings of fact when ruling on a motion for
summary judgment. 	Instead, the Court summarizes below the material facts it
considers to be uncontested and those facts on which a material dispute forecloses
summary adjudication. 	See, e.g., Vizant Techs., LLC. v. YRC Worldwide, Inc., 373
N.C. 549, 551 (2020); Ehmann v. Medflow, Inc., 2017 NCBC LEXIS 88, at *6 (N.C.
Super. Ct. Sept. 26, 2017).

Roscigno’s Employment with UTC
4. 	Plaintiffs UTC and Lung Biotechnology PBC (collectively UTC) and
Defendant Liquidia are competitors in the development of treatments for PAH, a rare
disease involving abnormally high blood pressure in the lungs. 	Elevated pressure
strains the right side of the heart as it pumps blood to the lungs and ultimately could
lead to heart failure. 	(See Vallerie V. McLaughlin, et al., Addition of Inhaled
Treprostinil to Oral Therapy for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension, 55 J. AM . COLL .
CARDIOLOGY (2010), ECF No. 285.1; UTC Annual Report (Form 10-K), ECF No.
256.3.) While there is no cure for PAH, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
has approved several drugs for its treatment. (See, e.g., Flolan Prescribing Info., ECF
No. 285.2; Ventavis Prescribing Info., ECF No. 285.3.)
5. 	Roscigno was employed by UTC from 1997 to 2007.2 	(Def. Robert
Roscigno’s Aff. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. [Roscigno Aff.] ¶ 3, ECF No. 212.6 (under seal),
ECF No. 376 (public version).) At the start of his employment, Roscigno was involved
in the clinical development of Remodulin®, a PAH treatment with the active
ingredient treprostinil. 	(Excerpts of Sept. 20, 2023 Dep. of Robert Roscigno [Pls.’
Roscigno Dep.] 283:2−8, ECF No. 303.7 (under seal), ECF No. 366.7 (public version).)
UTC first received FDA approval for subcutaneous administration of Remodulin® in
2002, followed by approval for intravenous administration in 2004. 	(Remodulin®
2 Roscigno served as the Senior Vice President and then President of Lung Rx, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of UTC. Plaintiff Lung Biotechnology PBC is the successor-in-interest to
Lung Rx, Inc. (Pls.’ Roscigno Dep. 22:18−23:1; Second Am. Compl. ¶ 14, ECF No. 154 (under
seal), ECF No. 155 (public version).)

Prescribing Info. (2002), ECF No. 285.10; Remodulin® Prescribing Info. (2004), ECF
No. 285.11.)
6. 	After successfully obtaining FDA approval for Remodulin®, UTC sought
to develop an inhaled treprostinil treatment for PAH. 	It tasked Roscigno with
overseeing this work. 	(Pls.’ Roscigno Dep. 23:2−24:1.) 	Roscigno designed protocols,
collaborated 	with 	pharmacokinetic 	consultants, 	participated 	in 	meetings 	with
regulators, and oversaw the program budget. 	(Pls.’ Roscigno Dep. 25:1−27:17; see
also Aff. and Expert Report of David W. Feigal [Feigal Report] ¶ 87, ECF No. 255.17
(under seal), ECF No. 335.17 (public version).)3
7. 	UTC ultimately succeeded in its efforts. 	In 2009, it received FDA
approval 	for 	Tyvaso®, 	an 	inhaled 	treprostinil 	treatment 	delivered 	through 	a
nebulizer. (Tyvaso® Prescribing Info., ECF No. 285.12.)
Roscigno’s Resignation and Subsequent Employment with Liquidia
8. 	Roscigno resigned from UTC on 18 June 2007. 	(Roscigno Aff. ¶ 8.) 	At
the time of his resignation, Tyvaso® had not yet received FDA approval. (See Feigal
Report ¶ 79 (observing that Tyvaso® was not approved as an orphan drug until 9
April 2009).)4
3 On 9 September 2024, Liquidia filed a Motion to Exclude the opinions of UTC’s expert, Dr.
David W. Feigal (Feigal), both at summary judgment and at trial, (ECF No. 312). On 23 July
2025, the Court entered an Order granting in part the Motion and excluding certain of
Feigal’s opinions. (See Order on Mot. Exclude, ECF No. 382.) While the Court cites to Feigal’s
expert report throughout this Opinion, it does not rely on any excluded statements or
opinions.
4 “An orphan drug is a drug intended to treat a condition affecting fewer than 200,000 persons
in the US, or which will not be profitable within 7 years following approval by the FDA[.]”
U.S. FOOD & D RUG ASSOCIATION, FDA/CDER S MALL BUSINESS CHRONICLES (July 13th,

9. 	Despite 	a 	practice 	of 	conducting 	exit 	interviews 	with 	departing
employees, UTC has no record of an exit interview with Roscigno during which it
would have requested the return of any UTC-related information. 	(Dep. of Alyssa
Friedrich, Individually and as Corporate Representative on Behalf of UTC [Pls.’
Friedrich Dep.] 90:8−101:22, ECF No. 255.1 (under seal), ECF No. 335.1 (public
version); Dep. of Alyssa Friedrich, Individually and as Corporate Representative on
Behalf of UTC [Def.’s Friedrich Dep.] 135:5−136:15, ECF No. 285.17 (under seal),
ECF No. 347 (public version); Memo. from A. Friedrich, ECF No. 285.18 (under seal),
ECF No. 348 (public version).) 	Roscigno testified that there was no exit interview.
(Roscigno Aff. ¶ 8.)
10. 	Roscigno began working as a part-time consultant for Liquidia in 2011
before formally joining Liquidia as its Senior Vice President of Product Development
and LIQ8615 Program Lead in 2015. (Roscigno Aff. ¶ 10; Excerpts of Sept. 20, 2023
Dep. of Robert Roscigno [Def.’s Roscigno Dep.] 160:16−19, 162:9−13, ECF No. 285.15
(under seal), ECF No. 346 (public version); Feigal Report ¶ 89.) Roscigno was also a
member of Liquidia’s “Rapid Response 	Team,” a group of 	Liquidia employees
designated to respond to any FDA requests relating to the LIQ861 New Drug
Application (NDA). 	(Excerpts of Dep. of Marissa Law Aug. 29, 2023 [Law Dep.]
34:12−23, 37:14−22, ECF No. 303.6 (under seal), ECF No. 366.6 (public version).)
2012), https://www.fda.gov/media/83372/download. 	See Truist Fin. Corp. v. Rocco, 2024
NCBC LEXIS 62, at **24 n. 62 (N.C. Super. Ct. Apr. 25, 2024) (“Our courts routinely take
judicial notice of public filings available on governmental agencies’ official websites.”).
5 LIQ861, also known as Yutrepia®, refers to Liquidia’s proposed New Drug Application
product for the treatment of PAH. (See Feigal Report ¶ 89 n. 51.)

11. 	Roscigno was issued a Liquidia laptop in 2015. 	(Def.’s Roscigno Dep.
79:1−6.) At some point thereafter, Roscigno discovered that he was in possession of
some old thumb drives that contained what he termed a “random assembly” of UTC-
related information and personal information, such as tax returns and family photos.
(Roscigno Aff. ¶ 10; Pls.’ Roscigno Dep. 53:3−6, 54:1−5, 71:16−19; Def.’s Roscigno Dep.
280:3−9; see also Dep. of Charles Walton, Esq. [Walton Dep.] 171:21−172:1, ECF No.
285.22 (under seal), ECF No. 352 (public version) (likening Roscigno’s flash drive to
a “junk drawer.”).)
12. 	After discovering the thumb drives, Roscigno connected one to his
Liquidia-issued 	laptop 	“to 	refamiliarize 	[himself] 	with 	the 	PAH 	field, 	[his]
publications, and [his prior work].” 	(Roscigno Aff. ¶ 10.) 	Roscigno ultimately
downloaded the contents–some of which were personal and others that related to his
work for UTC−to his Liquidia-issued laptop and then organized the documents into
sub-folders on a Liquidia OneDrive account. 	(Pls.’ Roscigno Dep. 72:13−73:25;
Excerpts of Dep. of Robert Roscigno 17 October 2023 [Roscigno Oct. Dep.] 174:14−19,
323:17−21, ECF No. 285.21 (under seal), ECF No. 351 (public version); Aff. and
Expert Report of Mark Johnson [Johnson Report] Table 7, ¶ 104, ECF No. 255.15
(under seal), ECF No. 335.15 (public version).) 	He accessed the UTC work-related
documents 	(the 	UTC 	Documents) 	multiple 	times 	during 	his 	employment 	with
Liquidia, including as late as June 2021. 	(See generally Johnson Report; Johnson
Report ¶ 104.)

13. 	On 	5 	November 	2021, 	Liquidia 	received 	tentative 	approval 	for
Yutrepia®, a PAH treatment that delivers treprostinil via a dry powder inhaler.6
(Liquidia Press Release, ECF No. 285.13.) UTC contends that Liquidia’s success was
accelerated 	by 	its 	use 	of 	information 	in 	the 	UTC 	Documents 	that 	Roscigno
downloaded to Liquidia’s OneDrive account. It contends that by possessing the UTC
Documents, Liquidia was able to avoid expense and expedite its efforts to secure FDA
approval of Yutrepia®. (Feigal Report, Principal Opinions; Aff. and Expert Report of
Jeffrey Stec [Stec Report] at 3−4, ECF No. 255.19 (under seal), ECF No. 335.19 (public
version).)
UTC’s Trade Secret Documents
14. 	UTC complains that the documents Roscigno downloaded contain trade
secret information and that, as a group, they constitute a compilation trade secret. It
contends that the “documents and information were all developed by UTC as a critical
part 	of 	its 	process 	of 	seeking, 	and 	ultimately 	obtaining, 	FDA 	approval
for . . . Remodulin® and Tyvaso®.” (Pls.’ Suppl. Resps. to Def.’s First, Second, Third,
Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Sets of Interrogs. [Suppl. Interrog. Resps.] at 38, ECF No.
255.20 (under seal), ECF No. 335.20 (public version).)
15. 	The UTC Documents fall into six categories: (1) financial documents,
(Feigal Report ¶¶ 121−38); (2) regulatory strategy and product development planning
documents, (Feigal Report ¶¶ 139−73); (3) marketing documents, (Feigal Report
6 Liquidia received final approval for Yutrepia® on 23 May 2025. NDA Approval Letter (May
23, 2025),
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/appletter/2025/213005Orig1s000ltr.pdf

¶¶ 174−83); 	(4) 	formulations 	and 	pharmacokinetics 	documents, 	(Feigal 	Report
¶¶ 184−204); (5) FDA communications documents, (Feigal report ¶¶ 205−22); and
(6) clinical trial documents, (Feigal Report ¶¶ 223−44). Within these categories, UTC
has identified in both its Second Amended Complaint and in its supplemental
interrogatory responses what it contends are individual trade secrets. 	(See Second
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20, 27; Suppl. Interrog. Resps. at 4−46.) In addition, as a whole, UTC
contends that the UTC Documents constitute a compilation trade secret.
16. 	Once a drug is approved by the FDA, some information regarding its
development becomes publicly available. 	(Dep. of UTC, by and through their
Corporate Designee, Dean Bunce [Bunce Dep.] 76:23−77:3, ECF No. 285.4 (under
seal), ECF No. 343 (public version).) 	For this reason and others, some of the
information within the UTC Documents is public. 	(See Bunce Dep. 77:4−9; Dep. of
Daniel E. Troy [Troy Dep.] 168:11−171:19, ECF No. 285.5 (under seal), ECF No. 344
(public version).) 	UTC does not deny that some of the information in the UTC
Documents is publicly available elsewhere, albeit not in this collected form.
17. 	Dean Bunce (Bunce), one of UTC’s Rule 30(b)(6) designees, testified that
he 	could 	not 	determine 	whether 	particular 	pieces 	of 	information 	within 	the
documents met the legal definition of a trade secret. 	(Bunce Dep. 131:2−4 (“I’m not
an expert on trade secret. I can’t – as a legal definition, I can’t tell you what is or isn’t
a 	trade 	secret.”); 	see 	also 	Bunce 	Dep. 	182:3−6, 	205:21−206:3, 	214:13−18,
225:25−226:4, 	232:21−25, 	250:13−18, 	261:5−10.) 	However, 	Noah 	Byrd 	(Byrd),
another UTC Rule 30(b)(6) designee on the same topic, testified that together the

compiled UTC Documents provide a “soup-to-nuts roadmap on how to get a drug
approved[.]” 	(R. 30(b)(6) Dep. of UTC, by and through its Corporate Designee, Dr.
Noah Byrd [Def.’s Byrd Dep.] 9:13−18, ECF No. 285.19 (under seal), ECF No. 349
(public version); see also Def.’s Byrd Dep. 16:13−17, 18:7−12, 19:5−8, 67:15−21,
122:7−13, 126:14−18.) 	Byrd maintains that this roadmap is a compilation trade
secret. 	(Def.’s Byrd Dep. 38:5−8 (“I would maintain that the way we go about drug
development is secret. These plans, the strategy is secret. The order of events as
they’re contemplated . . . would be secret.”); Def.’s Byrd Dep. 131:13−16 (“Again, I
think that when we’re talking about UTC’s trade secret on how we obtain our
approvals, you know, there is a methodology we follow.”).)
18. 	But 	Byrd 	also 	contends 	that 	some 	pieces 	of 	information 	within
individual documents are trade secrets. 	(See, e.g., Def.’s Byrd. Dep. 28:11−23,
30:17−19, 38:3−8, 39:25−40:18, 40:24−41:4, 69:2−11; 15 Sept. 2023 Dep. of Noah Byrd
Tr. Excerpts [Pls.’ Second Byrd Dep.] 115:11−17, 117:3−24, 132:6−16, 180:2−15,
202:13−18, ECF No. 336.4 (under seal), ECF No. 369.3 (public version).) 	And he is
not alone. 	Another UTC employee, Melissa Silverman, also identifies specific trade
secret information within UTC’s budget documents. 	(13 Sept. 2013 Dep. of Melissa
J. 	Silverman 	[Silverman 	Dep. 	(Sept.)] 	86:16−88:14, 	106:4−20, 	148:2−8,
168:15−169:21, ECF No. 336.2 (under seal), ECF No. 369.1 (public version); 18 Oct.
2023 Dep. of Melissa Silverman [Silverman Dep. (Oct.)] 12:6−20, 26:18−27:12,
29:6−22, 30:24−31:17, 32:21−33:12, 36:10−37:4, 39:2−40:24, ECF No. 336.3 (under
seal), ECF No. 369.2 (public version).) In addition, UTC’s expert, Daniel Troy (Troy),

opines as to specific trade secret information within the UTC Documents. 	(14 Feb.
2024 Dep. of Daniel Troy Tr. Excerpts [Second Troy Dep.] 269:6−18, 277:18−278:10,
ECF No. 336.7 (under seal), ECF No. 369.6 (public version); Rebuttal Expert Report
of Daniel Troy [Troy Rebuttal Report] ¶¶ 20−23, ECF No. 305.10 (under seal), ECF
No. 367.51 (public version).)
UTC’s Trade Secret Protections
19. 	The record regarding whether UTC took reasonable precautions to
identify and safeguard the secrecy of its trade secrets is mixed. According to its Chief
Executive Officer, Martine Rothblatt (Rothblatt), “UTC has consistently had policies,
training, 	and 	a 	culture 	geared 	towards 	protecting 	the 	confidentiality 	of 	its
information[.]” 	(Aff. of Martine Rothblatt, PH.D., J.D., M.B.A [Rothblatt Aff.] ¶ 5,
ECF No. 256.1; UTC 2006 Employee Handbook at 9, ECF No. 255.24 (under seal),
ECF No. 335.24 (public version); Dep. of Noah Byrd [Pls.’ Byrd Dep.] 45:22−24, ECF
No. 255.3 (under seal), ECF No. 335.3 (public version) (“[W]e have a lot of training
that we undergo that addresses behaving in an ethical and proper way to protect
[UTC].”).)
20. 	However, 	Roscigno 	testified 	that, 	during 	his 	employment, 	“UTC
operated like a start-up with a fast-paced ‘Wild West’ culture.” (Roscigno Aff. ¶ 3; see
also Def.’s Roscigno Dep. 27:25−28:2, 279:1−10.) 	He testified that UTC employees
“were authorized and encouraged to exchange UTC information, without restriction,
using personal thumb drives[,]” and that “UTC prioritized rapid development and
information exchange over data and information security.” 	(Roscigno Aff. ¶¶ 3, 5;
Def.’s Roscigno Dep. 60:2−10, 276:5−17.) Roscigno further testified that “UTC did not

distinguish any information as ‘trade secret’ or take measures to train employees to
protect confidential information.” (Roscigno Aff. ¶ 4.)
21. 	Bunce confirmed UTC’s practice of downloading and transferring UTC
information via thumb drives. 	(Bunce Dep. 286:11−13, 286:22−25.) 	Additionally,
Rothblatt testified that “UTC employees were permitted to use [thumb] drives as
necessary in the course and scope of their employment.” 	(Rothblatt Aff. ¶ 6.)
Nevertheless, Rothblatt testified that “UTC employees using [thumb] drives were
expected to maintain the confidentiality of UTC information at all times.” (Rothblatt
Aff. ¶ 6; see also UTC 2005 Technology Policy § 10.1, ECF No. 255.27 (under seal),
ECF No. 335.27 (public version) (“Any removable or portable electronic media
containing 	health 	care 	information, 	including . . . [thumb] 	drives . . . must 	be
safeguarded at all times.”).)
22. 	UTC considers all of its documents and information to be “confidential
and proprietary.” 	(Bunce Dep. 151:18−21, 154:20−22, 156:1−3; Def.’s Byrd Dep.
59:2−4.) 	Moreover, UTC’s Senior Vice President and Chief People Officer, Alyssa
Friedrich (Friedrich), testified that UTC does not differentiate between confidential
and 	trade 	secret 	information. 	(Def.’s 	Friedrich 	Dep. 	158:12−15 	(“We 	don’t
differentiate, like, what the difference is between a trade secret and a – you know –
and a confidential document. We just have an overarching theme about how we
safeguard things that are unique to UT[C.]”).) 	Friedrich further testified that she
believes UTC employees have a “general understanding of what confidentiality
means.” (Def.’s Friedrich Dep. 164:5−10.)

23. 	Kirby von Kessler, a UTC employee, testified that he never received
instruction about maintaining information as a trade secret 	(Dep. of Kirby von
Kessler [von Kessler Dep.] 56:24−57:8, ECF No. 255.2 (under seal), ECF No. 335.2
(public 	version) 	(“Q. 	[Y]ou 	don’t 	recall 	anybody 	at 	[UTC] 	ever 	referring 	you
specifically to information being maintained as a, quote, trade secret when you first
joined. Correct? A. I don’t recall that, no.”); von Kessler Dep. 58:15−24 (“Q. Did
anyone at [UTC] ever inform you . . . that you should maintain different levels of
security for different documents in your laptop? A. I don’t recall anybody ever, you
know, instructing me that or giving me guidance of that, yeah, no.”).)
24. 	UTC’s expert, Troy, testified that it would not be “productive” to have
employees determine whether something is or is not a trade secret. 	(Troy Dep.
360:5−8.) Instead, “the expectation is that any material generated by an employee of
[UTC] is handled ethically and kept as confidential[.]” (Def.’s Byrd Dep. 83:1−3; see
also 	Bunce 	Dep. 	152:6−11 	(explaining 	that 	UTC 	employees 	“understand 	that
anything 	created 	as 	an 	employee 	for 	[UTC] 	is 	considered 	confidential 	and
proprietary.”).)
25. 	This expectation is spelled out in both UTC’s Employee Handbook and
its Technology Policy. 	(See UTC 2006 Employee Handbook at 9 (“It is the policy of
[UTC] to ensure that the operations, activities, and business affairs of [UTC] are kept
confidential. If employees acquire confidential or proprietary information about
[UTC], it must be kept in strict confidence[.]”); UTC 2005 Technology Policy §§ 1.2,
2.7 (stating that UTC media is company property to be used for UTC’s benefit alone.).)

26. 	Additionally, 	UTC 	includes 	confidentiality 	and 	non-competition
provisions in its employment agreements and mandates that its employees assign to
UTC intellectual property rights developed during the course of employment. 	(See,
e.g., Dr. Roscigno’s 1997 Agreement with UTC, ECF No. 212.1; Dr. Roscigno’s 2007
Agreement 	with 	UTC, 	ECF 	No. 	212.3.) 	Likewise, 	UTC 	uses 	non-disclosure
agreements with third parties who are exposed to sensitive information. (von Kessler
Dep. 223:25−224:15.)
27. 	Rothblatt testified that UTC restricts access to trade secret information
contained in both hard-copy documents and electronic documents. 	With respect to
hard copies, “proprietary” documents are maintained in locked file rooms and locked
file cabinets with restricted access.7 	(Rothblatt Aff. ¶ 4; Suppl. Interrog. Resps. at
90−91.) 	Electronic documents are maintained on password-protected company
devices and servers. 	Access is limited to individuals subject to non-disclosure
obligations. (Suppl. Interrog. Resps. at 90−91; von Kessler Dep. 57:19−58:13.) As for
the specific documents at issue, however, “UTC is unable to say with certainty the
precise location that each physical copy of the . . . documents was stored.” 	(Suppl.
Interrog. Resps. at 116.)
28. 	Finally, although, as discussed above, there is no evidence that it did so
with Roscigno, UTC’s practice is to conduct exit interviews with departing employees
to remind them of their confidentiality obligations. 	It also requires departing
employees to return company property prior to their last day, regardless of whether
7 In 2008, UTC transitioned to electronic storage of its proprietary documents and stopped
storing physical copies of such documents on its premises. (Suppl. Interrog. Resps. at 116.)

it conducts an exit interview with the departing employee. 	(Pls.’ Friedrich Dep.
90:8−101:22; UTC 2006 Employee Handbook at 8 (“All company property and
equipment in the employee’s possession or control must be returned prior to the
employee’s last day.”).)
Delaware Patent Litigation
29. 	UTC first learned that Liquidia possessed its confidential information
in May 2021, when Liquidia produced documents containing UTC’s confidential
information during discovery in patent litigation in Delaware. See generally United
Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., Inc., 624 F. Supp. 3d 436 (D. Del. 2022). After
UTC attempted to amend its complaint in the patent litigation to add a claim
addressing Roscigno’s possession of its purported trade secret documents, Roscigno
opened and deleted many of the UTC documents that were stored on his Liquidia-
issued laptop. (Johnson Report ¶¶ 64−76, Ex. O.)
II. 	PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
30. 	UTC initiated this action on 10 December 2021, asserting claims under
both state and federal law. (Compl., ECF No. 3.) After the matter was designated to
this Court, Roscigno removed the case to federal court. (Notice of Removal, ECF No.
6.)
31. 	On 10 January 2022, UTC filed a First Amended Complaint consisting
solely of state law claims, (Am. Compl., ECF No. 15). 	As a result, the case was
remanded on 31 March 2022. See United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Corp., 2022
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123346 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 2022).

32. 	UTC moved for leave to amend the First Amended Complaint on 10
April 2023, (ECF No. 80). 	By order dated 20 July 2023, the Court granted in part
UTC’s motion, permitting it to add Lung Biotechnology PBC as a plaintiff and to
amend its allegations supporting the misappropriation of trade secrets claim. 	See
United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., 2023 NCBC LEXIS 88 (N.C. Super. Ct.
July 20, 2023). 	Plaintiffs then filed a Second Amended Complaint on 7 September
2023.
33. 	Liquidia filed this Motion on 3 July 2024, seeking summary judgment
on Plaintiffs’ claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair or deceptive
trade practices. After full briefing, the Court held a hearing on the Motion at which
all parties were represented by counsel. (Not. of Hr’g, ECF No. 330.)
34. 	The Motion is now ripe for disposition.
III. 	LEGAL STANDARD
35. 	Summary judgment is only appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
36. 	Genuine issues of material fact are those “which can be maintained by
substantial evidence.” 	Kessing v. Nat’l Mortg. Corp., 278 N.C. 523, 534 (1971).
“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion and means more than a scintilla or a permissible

inference.” 	Daughtridge v. Tanager Land, LLC, 373 N.C. 182, 187 (2019) (citation
and quotation marks omitted).
37. 	In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court must consider
all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. 	Belmont Ass’n v.
Farwig, 381 N.C. 306, 310 (2022). Parties moving for summary judgment have “the
burden of establishing the lack of any triable issue of fact.” 	Pembee Mfg. Corp. v.
Cape Fear Constr. Co., 313 N.C. 488, 491 (1985).
38. 	A movant may satisfy its burden by proving that “an essential element
of the opposing party’s claim does not exist, cannot be proven at trial, or would be
barred by an affirmative defense, or by showing through discovery that the opposing
party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of [the] claim.” Dobson
v. Harris, 352 N.C. 77, 83 (2000) (citations omitted).
IV. 	ANALYSIS
39. 	Liquidia moves for summary judgment arguing: (1) that the documents
at issue are not a protectable compilation or process trade secret; and (2) that UTC
did not engage in reasonable efforts to protect its trade secrets. 	(See generally Br.
Supp. Def. Liquidia Techs., Inc.’s Mot. Summ. J. [Def.’s Br. Supp.], ECF No. 286
(under seal), ECF No. 357 (public version).) The Court addresses each basis below.
A. Existence of a Trade Secret
40. 	“A 	threshold 	question 	in 	any 	action 	involving 	allegations 	of
misappropriation of trade secrets is whether the information in question constitutes
a trade secret” under the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act (NCTSPA),

N.C.G.S. §§ 66-152, et seq. 	Koch Measurement Devices, Inc. v. Armke, 2015 NCBC
LEXIS 45, at *10 (N.C. Super. Ct. May 1, 2015) (citing Combs & Assocs. v. Kennedy,
147 N.C. App. 362, 369 (2001)).
41. 	The 	NCTSPA 	defines 	a 	trade 	secret 	as 	“business 	or 	technical
information, including but not limited to a formula, pattern, program, device,
compilation of information, method, technique, or process” that both:
a. 	[d]erives independent actual or potential commercial value from not
being generally known or readily ascertainable through independent
development or reverse engineering by persons who can obtain
economic value from its disclosure or use; and
b. 	[i]s the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances
to maintain its secrecy.
N.C.G.S. § 66-152(3); see also Sterling Title Co. v. Martin, 266 N.C. App. 593, 600−01
(2019).
42. 	In addition, our courts have employed six factors when determining the
existence of a trade secret:
(1) the extent to which the information is known outside the business;
(2) the extent to which it is known to employees and others involved in the
business;
(3) the extent of measures taken to guard the secrecy of the information;
(4) the value of information to business and its competitors;
(5) 	the 	amount 	of 	effort 	or 	money 	expended 	in 	developing 	the
information; and
(6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could properly be
acquired or duplicated by others.

Combs & Assocs., 147 N.C. App. at 369−70. “These factors overlap, and courts do not
always examine them separately and individually.” Vitaform, Inc. v. Aeroflow, Inc.,
2020 NCBC LEXIS 132, at **19 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 4, 2020).
1. 	Individual Trade Secret Documents
43. 	Liquidia argues that UTC’s trade secret claim is based solely on a
“compilation” or “process” theory as opposed to a “document-by-document” theory.
(Def.’s Br. Supp. 23−25.) 	UTC disagrees and responds that “Liquidia’s argument
ignores the pleadings and the substantial record evidence about specific trade secret
documents.” (Mem. Opp’n Def. Liquidia Techs. Inc.’s Mot. Summ. J [Pls.’ Br. Opp’n]
12−17, ECF No. 306 (under seal), ECF No. 365 (public version).)
44. 	UTC describes it trade secrets as consisting of the following categories
of 	information: 	(1) 	financial 	documents, 	(2) 	regulatory 	strategy 	and 	product
development planning documents, (3) marketing documents, (4) formulations and
pharmacokinetics documents, (5) FDA communications documents, and (6) clinical
trial documents. (See generally Feigal Report ¶¶ 121−244.)
45. 	Although UTC contends that the documents in Roscigno’s possession, as
a whole, provide a “soup-to-nuts roadmap on how to get a drug approved,” (Def.’s Byrd
Dep. 9:13−18), UTC has also identified by bates numbers in both its Second Amended
Complaint and its supplemental interrogatory responses those documents that it
contends contain individual trade secrets. (See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20, 27; Suppl.
Interrog. Resps. at 4−46.) Moreover, one of UTC’s experts, Dr. Feigal, also identified
these documents in his expert report. (See Feigal Report § XIII(A).)

46. 	Additionally, while Byrd maintains that the “totality” of the information
in Roscigno’s possession constitutes a trade secret, (see, e.g., Def.’s Byrd Dep. 9:14−20,
11:6−11, 16:13−17, 18:7−12, 19:5−8, 22:11−14, 32:2−7), he, along with others, also
references specific trade secret information within some of the individual documents.
(See, e.g., Def.’s Byrd Dep. 28:11−23, 30:17−19, 38:3−8, 39:25−40:18, 40:24−41:4
69:2−11; 	Pls.’ 	Second 	Byrd 	Dep. 	115:11−17, 	117:3−24, 	132:6−16, 	180:2−15,
202:13−18; Silverman Dep. (Sept.) 86:16−88:14, 106:4−20, 148:2−8, 168:15−169:21;
Silverman Dep. (Oct.) 12:6−20, 26:18−27:12, 29:6−22, 30:24−31:17, 32:21−33:12,
36:10−37:4, 39:2−40:24; Second Troy Dep. 269:6−18, 277:18−278:10; Troy Rebuttal
Report ¶¶ 20−23.)
47. 	Given the record evidence, a factfinder could conclude that the UTC
Documents contain individual trade secrets that UTC has identified the individual
trade secrets with sufficient particularity. 	RoundPoint Mortg. Co. v. Florez, 2016
NCBC LEXIS 18, at **29−30 (N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 18, 2016) (holding plaintiff met its
burden of describing its trade secrets with sufficient particularity where plaintiff
described its trade secrets as consisting of specific categories of information and
further specified by bates number the documents it believed fell within those
categories while supplementing its identification with other evidence).
48. 	However, Liquidia also argues that UTC cannot recover damages for
unjust enrichment for the alleged misappropriation of individual trade secrets
because its experts did not apportion damages on a document-by-document basis. It
contends, therefore, that “UTC has no evidence to support monetary relief on any one

of the individualized trade secrets.” 	(Def.’s Br. Supp. 12, 23−25.) 	The Court
disagrees.
49. 	“[T]he party seeking damages bears the burden of showing that the
amount of damages is based upon a standard that will allow the finder of fact to
calculate the amount of damages with reasonable certainty.” Med. Staffing Network,
Inc. v. Ridgway, 194 N.C. App. 649, 660 (2009). Although the Court has determined
that Dr. Feigel, UTC’s expert, failed to identify and employ a reliable methodology to
apportion damages among the trade secrets UTC asserts are within the documents
at issue, (Order on Mot. to Exclude ¶¶ 58−66), the Court cannot conclude from the
record presented that UTC is incapable of presenting evidence that would permit a
fact-finder to calculate damages with respect to at least some of the alleged trade
secrets at issue.
50. 	In addition, if successful with respect to liability, UTC may be entitled
to other forms of relief such as an injunction against future use of its trade secrets or
an order conditioning such use on payment of a reasonable royalty. 	N.C.G.S. § 66-
154(a), (a)(1). 	Punitive damages and/or attorneys’ fees are available if willful and
malicious misappropriation occurred. N.C.G.S. § 66-154(c), (d).
2. 	Compilation Trade Secret
51. 	Next, 	Liquidia 	argues 	that 	UTC 	cannot 	support 	its 	claim 	for
misappropriation of a compilation trade secret because the documents at issue are
not a compilation, but are rather “random documents that Roscigno stored to his
personal USB thumb drive[.]” 	It maintains that because UTC has not presented

evidence of the effort expended and the cost involved in compiling the information, it
has failed to establish the existence of a compilation trade secret. 	(Def.’s Br. Supp.
14−19.)
52. 	The statutory definition of a trade secret includes a “compilation of
information.” 	N.C.G.S. 	§ 66-152(3). 	However, 	“[w]hether 	a 	compilation 	or
manipulation of information deserves trade secret protection depends on several
factors, including the difficulty with which the information could be gathered,
compiled, or manipulated.” 	RoundPoint Mortg. Co., 2016 NCBC LEXIS 18, at **32
(citing Byrd’s Lawn & Landscaping, Inc., 142 N.C. App. 371, 376 (2001)).
53. 	While Liquidia argues that the information at issue here was compiled
generally in the course of doing business and did not require additional effort or
expense, (Def.’s Br. Supp. 17−18), UTC maintains that Roscigno cherry-picked
competitively advantageous material to use in a future role. (Pls.’ Br. Opp’n 22−24.)
This Court has found that a compilation trade secret can exist when the departing
employee was the one to curate and compile the information he intended to use
competitively. See Glover Constr. Co., Inc. v. Sequoia Servs., LLC, 2020 NCBC LEXIS
76, at *10−11 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 18, 2020) (departing employee selected and copied
company information); Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Enquist Equip., L.L.C., 2002
NCBC LEXIS 2, at **41−42 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 10, 2002) (concluding that a genuine
issue of material fact existed as to whether some or all of the categories of business
information taken by departing employees constituted trade secrets).

54. 	Therefore, 	it 	will 	be 	for 	a 	jury 	to 	determine 	whether 	Roscigno
purposefully compiled these documents at issue to constitute a “roadmap,” as UTC
maintains, or whether the documents were randomly compiled in the course of doing
business, as Liquidia argues.
55. 	To the extent Liquidia argues that a compilation trade secret does not
exist because the compiled information was either publicly available or was otherwise
not confidential, the Court disagrees. 	To be sure, compilations of readily available
public information are not usually considered trade secrets. See Edgewater Servs. v.
Epic Logistics, Inc., 2009 NCBC LEXIS 21, at **13−14 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 11, 2009)
(identifying plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets as “carrier files, rates, and customer files”
containing information “that can be learned directly from carriers and customers of
[plaintiff].”); Found. Bldg. Materials, LLC v. Conking & Calabrese, Co., 2023 NCBC
LEXIS 87, at **22 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 7, 2023) (identifying plaintiff’s alleged trade
secret as a compilation of Outlook contacts consisting of “publicly available names,
email 	addresses 	and, 	in 	some 	instances, 	telephone 	numbers 	and 	business
addresses.”).
56. 	But here the documents contain “more than just publicly available
information.” Blusky Restoration Contrs., LLC v. Brown, 2024 NCBC LEXIS 105, at
**64−66 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 7, 2024) (differentiating compilation trade secrets that
contain 	non-public 	information). 	They 	allegedly 	contain 	confidential 	financial
information, regulatory strategy and product development information, marketing
information, formulations and pharmacokinetics information, FDA communications,

and clinical trial information that was not readily available as a collection but was
curated from confidential files by Roscigno. The UTC Documents specifically pertain
to the development of an inhaled treprostinil treatment for PAH, efforts which UTC
considers confidential and proprietary. 	(Feigal Report ¶¶ 121−244; Bunce Dep.
151:18−21, 154:20−22, 156:1−3; Def.’s Byrd Dep. 59:2−4.)
57. 	Further, 	the 	NCTSPA 	“suggests 	that 	a 	measure 	of 	information’s
commercial value may include a consideration of the value that could be obtained by
the specific user that is accused of misappropriation.” RoundPoint Mortg. Co., 2016
NCBC LEXIS 18, at **32−33. 	Roscigno testified he used the documents “to
refamiliarize [himself] with the PAH field, [his] publications, and [his prior work].”
(Roscigno Aff. ¶ 10.) He then organized the documents into sub-folders on a Liquidia
OneDrive 	account 	and accessed the 	documents 	multiple 	times 	throughout 	his
employment with Liquidia while pursuing the development of an inhaled treprostinil
treatment for PAH. (Pls.’ Roscigno Dep. 72:13−73:25; Roscigno Oct. Dep. 174:14−19,
323:17−21; Johnson Report ¶ 104, Table 7.) 	UTC’s experts opined that Roscigno’s
possession and use of the documents allowed Liquidia to avoid costs and receive a
head start on FDA approval of Yutrepia®. 	(Feigal Report, Principal Opinions; Stec
Report 	at 	3−4.) 	Therefore, 	UTC 	has 	presented evidence 	to 	suggest 	that the
documents, as a compilation, “[d]erive independent actual or potential commercial
value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable . . . by persons who can
obtain economic value from [their] . . . use[.]” N.C.G.S. § 66-152(3)(a).

58. 	Accordingly, the Court concludes that a genuine issue of material fact
remains for a jury to determine whether the UTC Documents constitute a protectible
compilation trade secret or whether information within those documents amounts to
individual trade secrets. Accordingly, on this basis, the Motion is DENIED.
3. 	Process Trade Secret
59. 	Liquidia 	argues 	that, 	to 	the 	extent 	UTC 	asserts 	that 	the 	UTC
Documents are a process trade secret, its claim fails because the process a company
must follow to obtain FDA approval is well known and not unique. (Def.’s Br. Supp.
19−23.) 	UTC 	responds 	that 	Liquidia’s 	argument 	“ignores 	the 	content 	of 	the
documents and the realities of [the] FDA’s drug approval process.” 	(Pls.’ Br. Opp’n
29.) 	It contends that its proprietary roadmap to success with an aerosolized
treprostinil treatment is more refined than publicly available information about the
FDA approval process. (Pls.’ Br. Opp’n 29−33.)
60. 	A process can be a trade secret. See N.C.G.S. § 66-152(3) (“‘Trade secret’
means business or technical information, including but not limited to a formula,
pattern, 	program, 	device, 	compilation 	of 	information, 	method 	technique, 	or
process . . . (emphasis 	added)). 	“Such 	processes, 	however, 	must 	be 	unique 	to
Plaintiffs or modified by Plaintiffs in unique ways to qualify for trade secret
protection under the [NC]TSPA.” 	Red Valve, Inc. v. Titan Valve, Inc., 2018 NCBC
LEXIS 41, at **31−32 (N.C. Super. Ct. Apr. 17, 2018).
61. 	A process trade secret may exist even when certain characteristics or
components of the process have been publicly disclosed. When determining whether

such disclosure forecloses trade secret protection, the Court looks to “the ease or
difficulty with which the information could properly be acquired or duplicated by
others.” SCR-Tech LLC v. Evonik Energy Servs. LLC, 2011 NCBC LEXIS 27, at **42
(N.C. Super. Ct. July 22, 2011). As this Court has observed:
If all the individual parts of a process are in the public domain, so that
through specific disclosures the entire process can be generally known
or readily ascertainable through independent development by those who
can obtain economic value through the disclosure, then that entire
process will lose any trade secret protection. If part of the process
becomes known, but other steps remain undisclosed, then the secret
steps may maintain trade secret protection.
Id. (collecting cases).
62. 	In addition to publicly available information, in this case there is
evidence that the UTC Documents contain information that is not publicly available.
UTC contends that it developed the documents as a strategy or “roadmap” – “a critical
part 	of 	its 	process 	of 	seeking, 	and 	ultimately 	obtaining, 	FDA 	approval
for . . . Remodulin® and Tyvaso®.” (Suppl. Interrog. Resps. at 38.)
63. 	It is undisputed that only a fraction of all drug candidates receive
marketing approval. (Pls.’ Br. Opp’n 29 n. 4 (citing Yamaguci, et al., Approval Success
Rates of Drug Candidates Based on Target, Action, Modality, Application, and Their
Combinations, N ATIONAL L IBRARY OF MEDICINE (Apr. 8, 2021).) 	UTC argues that
what makes its approach competitively valuable is that it has fine-tuned the process
to achieve success. (See, e.g., Feigal Report, Principal Opinions ¶ 3 (explaining that
“[t]here are steps on the drug development path that must be accomplished in series,
i.e., one before the other,” in order for a product to proceed and that “[t]he [UTC] trade

secrets provided detailed information on how to complete these steps that otherwise
would not have been available[.]”).)
64. 	In 	short, 	record 	evidence 	exists 	to 	support 	a 	conclusion 	that 	the
documents at issue constitute a process trade secret. Accordingly, on this basis, the
Motion is DENIED.
B. Efforts to Maintain Secrecy
65. 	Liquidia argues that UTC’s trade secret claim fails as a matter of law
because, when it comes to efforts to maintain secrecy, UTC does not distinguish
between its trade secrets and other confidential information. (Def.’s Br. Supp. 25−31.)
UTC responds that the NCTSPA does not require it to draw this distinction and that
it takes precautions to protect as secret all of its confidential information, regardless
of whether it meets the legal definition of a trade secret or not. 	(Pls.’ Br. Opp’n
26−28.)
66. 	The NCTSPA requires that trade secret information be “the subject of
efforts 	that 	are 	reasonable 	under 	the 	circumstances 	to 	maintain 	its 	secrecy.”
N.C.G.S. § 66-152(3)(b). 	“[T]he statute calls for a fact-specific inquiry regarding
whether efforts were ‘reasonable.’ ” 	RoundPoint Mortg. Co., 2016 NCBC LEXIS 18,
at **36.
67. 	The Court agrees with UTC that its failure to differentiate between
trade secret and other confidential information when employing protective measures
is not necessarily dispositive when it comes to determining whether UTC’s trade
secret protections were reasonable. See Byrd’s Lawn & Landscaping, Inc., 142 N.C.

App. at 375−76 (holding that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support a
finding that its historical cost information was a trade secret where the information
“was treated by plaintiff as confidential[.]” (emphasis added)); RoundPoint Mortg.
Co., 2016 NCBC LEXIS 18, at **37−38 (denying summary judgment where, among
other things, the plaintiff company had an employee handbook reciting that all of its
information “should be considered confidential[.]” (emphasis added)). See also Glover
Constr. Co., 2020 NCBC LEXIS, at *46 (“Many non-lawyers may not know the legal
definition of a trade secret.”).
68. 	The 	record reflects 	that 	UTC 	has 	an 	Employee 	Handbook 	and a
Technology Policy detailing the confidentiality obligations of its employees. 	(UTC
2006 Employee Handbook at 9; UTC 2005 Technology Policy §§ 1.2, 2.7.) It includes
confidentiality and non-competition provisions in its employment agreements and
uses non-disclosure agreements with third parties who are exposed to sensitive
information. 	(Dr. Roscigno’s 1997 Agreement with UTC; Dr. Roscigno’s 2007
Agreement with UTC; von Kessler Dep. 223:25−224:15.) With respect to hard copies
of sensitive documents, UTC has presented evidence that it maintains the documents
in locked file rooms and locked file cabinets with restricted access. 	Electronic
documents are maintained on password-protected company devices and servers, and
access 	is 	limited to 	individuals 	who 	are 	subject 	to 	non-disclosure 	obligations.
(Rothblatt Aff. ¶ 4; Suppl. Interrog Resps. 90−91; von Kessler Dep. 57:19−58:11.)
UTC also requires departing employees to return company property prior to their last

day and conducts exit interviews with departing employees. 	(UTC 2006 Employee
Handbook at 8; Pls.’ Friedrich Dep. 90:8−101:22.)
69. 	While Liquidia has “produced evidence that could lead a jury to doubt
the adequacy of [UTC’s] policies . . . the question is whether [UTC] is entitled to ask
the jury to undertake an analysis of the reasonableness of [its] efforts to maintain the
confidentiality of the information.” 	RoundPoint Mortg. Co., 2016 NCBC LEXIS 18,
at **37−38. 	The Court concludes that UTC’s evidence is sufficient to put that
question to the jury. See id. at **36−38; Blusky Restoration Contrs., LLC, 2024 NCBC
LEXIS 105, at **66−69.
70. 	Accordingly, on this basis, the Motion is DENIED.
C. Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practice
71. 	Because UTC’s claim for unfair or deceptive trade practice is based
entirely on its claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, (Second Am. Compl.
¶¶ 58−67), the Motion with respect to the UDTPA claim is also DENIED. See Power
Home Solar, LLC v. Sigora Solar, LLC, 2021 NCBC LEXIS 55, at *51 (N.C. Super.
Ct. June 18, 2021) (“Our courts have long recognized that claims for misappropriation
of trade secrets . . . may form the basis of a UDTPA claim.” (cleaned up)).
V. 	CONCLUSION
72. 	WHEREFORE, Defendant Liquidia Technologies, Inc.’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is DENIED. 	The Court shall set a status conference to
determine a trial date in this matter after consultation with counsel.

SO ORDERED, this the 29th day of July, 2025.
/s/ Julianna Theall Earp
Julianna Theall Earp
Special Superior Court Judge
for Complex Business Cases