Claims that Wu-Tang Clan’s One of a Kind Album is a Trade Secret Allowed to Move Forward

On September 25, 2025, Judge Pamela K. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York held that an unreleased, one‑of‑a‑kind music album may qualify as a protectable trade secret under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and New York law, signaling a broadened view of trade secret protection that could provide artists new avenues to safeguard their works.

I. Background

In PleasrDAO v. Shkreli, No. 24-CV-4126 (PKC) (MMH), 2025 WL 2733345 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2025), the Court was faced with a unique application of trade secret law. Defendant Martin Shkreli (“Defendant”) purchased “the most expensive musical work ever sold: the only copy of Wu-Tang Clan’s album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin.”[1] The album was never publicly released, and was instead packaged in a hand‑carved nickel‑silver case with a gold‑leaf certificate, bespoke speakers, and a 174‑page leather‑bound manuscript, as a “historically unique musical compilation” protesting the digital era’s devaluation of music.[2] After Defendant was convicted on federal securities fraud charges, he was forced to sell the album. PleasrDAO (“Plaintiff”) then bought the album but contended that Defendant retained and distributed copies through online livestreams, MP3s, and other methods following the purchase, and boasted about doing so online.[3]

Plaintiff alleged that the album, specifically the underlying audio “data and files,” qualifies as a protectable trade secret because it was kept secret through reasonable measures and derived independent economic value from its secrecy and extreme exclusivity.[4]  In his motion to dismiss, Defendant argued that there is no “secret” and, therefore, Plaintiff does not plausibly state trade secret claims under Rule 12(b)(6).[5]

II. Whether the Information Qualified as a Trade Secret

In determining whether Plaintiff sufficiently pled trade secret protection, the Court applied the following six factors from Integrated Cash Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Digit. Transactions, Inc., 920 F.2d 171, 173 (2d Cir. 1990) (the “Integrated Cash factors”):

(1) The extent to which the information is known outside of the business;

(2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in the business;

(3) the extent of measures taken by the business to guard the secrecy of the information;

(4) the value of the information to the business and to its competitors;

(5) the amount of effort or money expended by the business in developing the information; and

(6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others.[6]

III. Factors 1 and 2: Extent to which Information is Known Outside and Inside the Business

For the first two factors, how widely the information is known outside and inside the business, the Court credited the allegations that “the contents of the Album’s data and files remain unknown to the public at large,” and emphasized that only one, unreleased copy of the album existed.[7] The Court also highlighted the various strict requirements regarding distribution that Defendant had to abide by when in possession of the album under the original purchase agreement (“OPA”).[8] Based on these determinations, the first two factors favored trade secret protection.

IV. Factor 3: Measures Taken to Guard Secrecy

On the third factor, measures taken to guard secrecy, the Court found the complaint plausibly alleged “reasonable measures,” including secure transport, secure sites, armed security, controlled access points, and continuous video oversight and condition checks.[9] Although the DTSA does not define “reasonable measures” with precision, courts often look to confidentiality restrictions and physical security.[10] The Court stressed that the reasonableness inquiry is context‑specific and fact‑intensive, and that the allegations cleared that bar. 

V. Factors 4 and 5: Value to the Business/Competitors and Effort or Money Expended

On the fourth and fifth factors—value to the owner and competitors, and the effort/money expended—the Court highlighted that the album sold for $2 million originally and that Plaintiff later paid roughly $4 million for the physical asset and exclusive play rights, plus another substantial sum for copyright interests.[11]  Crucially, the Court accepted that the album’s “independent economic value” arises from its secrecy and exclusivity, given Plaintiff’s experience‑centric model.[12] Distinguishing contrary authorities involving unreleased recordings,[13] the Court reasoned that those plaintiffs failed to show a competitive advantage derived from secrecy because their value proposition was tied to eventual public sale. Here, by contrast, the value rested on leveraging unique control to create exclusive experiences that others cannot replicate. The Court, therefore, found that these factors supported trade secret protection.

VI. Factor 6: Ease or Difficulty of Proper Acquisition/Duplication

On the sixth factor, whether others can properly acquire or duplicate the information, the Court rejected Defendant’s claim that the OPA authorized disclosure “to the world.”[14] The OPA permitted duplication only “for private use,” allowed exhibitions/playing in limited settings “not customarily used as venues for large musical concerts,” and required any sale to be “under the same terms and conditions.”[15] The Court emphasized the distinction between playing the album in controlled settings and disclosing or transferring the underlying data/files in a way that enables uncontrolled acquisition or distribution by others. Given the tight contractual limits and the one‑copy structure, the Court found the album remained “cloaked with a ‘substantial element of secrecy.’”[16]

VII. Holding

Acknowledging that “whether the Album, and the information contained therein, is a trade secret is a question of fact,” the Court held that Plaintiff plausibly alleged a protectable trade secret.[17] The motion to dismiss the trade secret claims was therefore denied.

VIII. Conclusion

The decision signals that courts may recognize trade secret protection for nontraditional, creative assets when their market value is intrinsically tied to secrecy and exclusive control, provided owners can plausibly allege reasonable secrecy measures and a business model that monetizes exclusivity rather than public release.

Cullen and Dykman’s Intellectual Property team continues to monitor important developments in trademark and copyright law. Should you have any questions about this legal alert, please feel free to contact Karen Levin (klevin@cullenllp.com) at (516) 296-9110, Ariel Ronneburger (aronneburger@cullenllp.com) at (516) 296-9182, or Jordan Milite (jmilite@cullenllp.com) at (516) 296-9128.

This advisory provides a brief overview of the most significant changes in the law and does not constitute legal advice. Nothing in this advisory creates an attorney-client relationship between the sender and recipient.

Footnotes

[1] PleasrDAO v. Shkreli, No. 24-CV-4126 (PKC) (MMH), 2025 WL 2733345 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2025).

[2] Id. at 2.

[3] Id. at 2-4.

[4] See id. at 8-9.

[5] Id. at 5-7.

[6] Id. at 7.

[7] Id. at 8.

[8] Id.

[9] Id. at 9.

[10] Id. (citing Negative, Inc. v. McNamara, 770 F. Supp. 3d 472, 479 (E.D.N.Y. 2025)).

[11] PleasrDAO, No. 24-CV-4126 (PKC) (MMH), 2025 WL 2733345, at 9.

[12] Id. (“Plaintiff’s business is one that ‘collects . . . culturally significant media and materials with the intent of creating ecosystem experiences that encourage participation and interaction throughout the United States and other countries.’”)

[13] Id. at 10 (i.e., distinguishing Paisley Park Enters., Inc. v. Boxill, 253 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1041, 1046 (D. Minn. 2017)).

[14] PleasrDAO, No. 24-CV-4126 (PKC) (MMH), 2025 WL 2733345, at 10.

[15] See id. at 9, 11.

[16] Id. at 11 (citing Broker Genius, Inc., 280 F. Supp. 3d at 514 (quoting A.H. Emery Co. v. Marcan Prods. Corp., 389 F.2d 11, 16 (2d Cir. 1968))).

[17] PleasrDAO, No. 24-CV-4126 (PKC) (MMH), 2025 WL 2733345, at 11.