
Fred D. Zemel
Partner
201-896-7065 fzemel@sh-law.com
Partner
201-896-7065 fzemel@sh-law.comOne year after the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) took effect, fig jam maker Dalmatia Import Group Inc. became the first plaintiff to be awarded damages for federal trade secret misappropriation. The company’s trade secrets suit alleged that its former manufacturer and distributor used its jam recipe to create a competing product that nearly drove Dalmatia out of business.

The DTSA created a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. Prior to the federal law taking effect one year ago, businesses had to rely on a patchwork of state intellectual property laws to protect their trade secrets. The key provision of the DTSA provides that “an owner of a trade secret that is misappropriated may bring a civil action under this subsection if the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.”
The DTSA offers several legal remedies that were not available under state law. Notably, the federal law allows trade secret owners to seek a civil seizure “to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret.” When “exceptional circumstances” exist that render injunctive relief “inequitable,” courts are also authorized to order the defendant to pay a reasonable royalty for the continued use of the trade secret. Once the court determines that a trade secret has been unlawfully misappropriated, the owner is entitled to compensatory damages, which may include (i) “actual loss of the trade secret”; (ii) “any unjust enrichment”; or (ii) a reasonable royalty for the use. Punitive damages are available when a trade secret is “willfully and maliciously misappropriated,” while attorneys’ fees are available in cases of bad faith.
In Dalmatia Import Group, Inc. et al. v. FoodMatch, Inc. et al., Dalmatia alleged that FoodMatch, Inc., Lancaster Fine Foods, Inc., and Earth Pride Organics, LLC (Defendants) misappropriated the proprietary recipe and production process for the company’s fig jam. Its complaint included claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, conversion, and breach of contract. Dalmatia initially filed suit in a Pennsylvania state court but removed the case to federal court following the enactment of the DTSA.
According to Dalmatia, FoodMatch conspired with Lancaster and Earth Pride to use Dalmatia’s proprietary fruit spread recipes and production processes to launch a copycat line of fruit spreads under FoodMatch’s Divina brand. After Dalmatia terminated its distribution agreement with FoodMatch in 2015, the company hired Lancaster, Dalmatia’s fig spread manufacturer in the United States, to create FoodMatch’s own fig and orange fig spreads. “As Dalmatia’s contract manufacturer for more than seven years, Lancaster had full knowledge of Dalmatia’s proprietary recipes and manufacturing processes – information it was obligated to keep confidential and to use only for Dalmatia’s benefit,” Dalmatia’s complaint alleged. “Lancaster used that knowledge to create fig and orange fig spreads for FoodMatch to sell in competition with Plaintiff’s fig spread products.”
In February, a Pennsylvania jury returned a verdict in favor of Dalmatia for trade secret misappropriation, trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, and additional state law violations. The jury awarded $500,000 in damages for misappropriation of trade secrets. Overall, the jury awarded $2.5 million in damages.
On May 10, U.S. District Judge Edward Smith of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered judgment, rejecting the defendants’ argument that Dalmatia failed to prove it incurred damages after DTSA’s effective date. The court also awarded treble damages on the trademark counterfeiting claim, which brings the final award to $5.2 million.
Do you have any questions regarding the DTSA? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Fred Zemel, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe

Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

When a family member can no longer make important decisions for themself, the question is often not whether the family will step in, but whether they have the legal authority to do so. A spouse may manage household finances, or an adult child may arrange medical care and pay bills. Still, informal assistance does not […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

New Jersey residential developers with affordable housing obligations should carefully review their existing approvals, development agreements, and proposed deed restrictions in light of the State’s revised UHAC regulations (Uniform Housing Affordability Controls). The regulations, which took effect on November 6, 2025, significantly change the administration and physical requirements for affordable housing units. For developers with […]
Author: Wendy Rubinstein Quiroga
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!