Disclaimer: These case studies are entirely hypothetical and created for educational purposes only. Any resemblance to actual companies, persons, or events is coincidental. These scenarios are not legal advice and should not be relied upon for actual legal decisions.
The Departing Developer's Side Project
When a contractor's "inspiration" becomes infringementThe Situation
A fintech startup ("FinFlow") hired a senior contractor to build a payment reconciliation engine. The contractor worked for 8 months with full repository access, then left to start a competing company. Six months later, FinFlow discovered the competitor's product had nearly identical architecture and even similar variable naming conventions.
The NDA Issue
FinFlow's NDA had a standard "residuals clause" allowing the contractor to use "general knowledge and skills" retained in memory. The contractor argued the architecture patterns were general knowledge. However, the NDA lacked: (1) specific source code definitions, (2) no-copying provisions, and (3) a clear prohibition on developing competing products using confidential information.
Outcome
Partial settlement. FinFlow was able to show the similarity was beyond "general knowledge" through expert code analysis, but the weak NDA language made litigation risky. The competitor agreed to rewrite certain modules and pay a modest settlement. FinFlow spent 18 months and significant legal fees on the dispute.
- Lesson 1: Include specific "no derivative works" language that survives even residuals clauses
- Lesson 2: Define "source code" comprehensively to include architecture patterns and naming conventions
- Lesson 3: Add non-compete provisions where legally enforceable, or at minimum non-solicitation clauses
- Lesson 4: Implement technical controls (code obfuscation, limited branch access) alongside legal protections
The Marketplace Integration That Shared Too Much
When API partners become inadvertent competitorsThe Situation
An e-commerce platform ("ShopStack") partnered with an analytics company ("DataView") for a marketplace integration. During the integration, ShopStack shared detailed API documentation including rate limits, pricing tier triggers, and internal performance benchmarks. DataView later pivoted to offer its own competing e-commerce platform - using ShopStack's capacity information to undercut their pricing.
The NDA Issue
ShopStack's NDA covered "technical specifications" but didn't explicitly list rate limits, pricing tier information, or capacity metrics as confidential. The NDA also lacked provisions about using confidential information for competitive purposes - it only restricted disclosure to third parties.
Outcome
Unfavorable resolution. Because DataView didn't technically "disclose" the information to third parties (they used it internally), ShopStack's NDA provided limited recourse. DataView's new platform launched with aggressive pricing that directly matched ShopStack's pain points. ShopStack lost several enterprise customers before adjusting their pricing strategy.
- Lesson 1: Explicitly list rate limits, capacity metrics, and pricing triggers as confidential information
- Lesson 2: Include "non-use" provisions that prohibit using information for competitive purposes, not just disclosure
- Lesson 3: Consider non-compete provisions for deep integration partners
- Lesson 4: Share minimum necessary information during integration - not internal benchmarks
The CLA That Wasn't Clear Enough
When open source contributions create ownership disputesThe Situation
A DevOps startup ("DeployFlow") maintained a popular open source CI/CD tool with a commercial enterprise version. A large contributor ("TechCorp") had employees submit significant features over two years. TechCorp later argued they owned rights to the enterprise features derived from their contributions, demanding either removal or a revenue share.
The NDA/CLA Issue
DeployFlow had a basic CLA that granted them rights to contributions, but it only covered the open source project. The CLA didn't clearly address: (1) derivative works in commercial products, (2) patent grants for contributed algorithms, or (3) the relationship between open source contributions and proprietary extensions.
Outcome
Negotiated settlement. DeployFlow agreed to credit TechCorp prominently and provide free enterprise licenses for their internal use. The dispute cost DeployFlow significant legal fees and delayed their Series B by 4 months as investors awaited resolution.
- Lesson 1: CLAs should explicitly cover derivative works and commercial applications
- Lesson 2: Include patent grants in CLAs, especially for algorithm contributions
- Lesson 3: Clearly separate open source and proprietary code paths in your architecture
- Lesson 4: For significant contributors, consider explicit agreements beyond the standard CLA
The Reseller Who Revealed Too Much
When white-label confidentiality breaks downThe Situation
A marketing automation platform ("AutoMate") licensed their software to a digital agency ("GrowthCo") under a white-label agreement. GrowthCo was supposed to present the platform as their own. During a competitive pitch, GrowthCo's sales team accidentally revealed AutoMate as the underlying provider - to a prospect who was also evaluating AutoMate's direct offering. The prospect used this information to negotiate a 40% discount directly with AutoMate.
The NDA Issue
AutoMate's white-label NDA prohibited "disclosing the underlying provider to end customers" but didn't: (1) define specific damages for breach, (2) include training requirements for reseller staff, or (3) have provisions for prospect conflicts where both parties might be pitching the same customer.
Outcome
Mixed resolution. AutoMate won the direct deal but at a significant discount. GrowthCo technically breached the NDA but claimed it was an inadvertent disclosure by a junior employee. Without liquidated damages provisions, AutoMate couldn't easily quantify their loss. The partnership continued but with increased tension.
- Lesson 1: Include liquidated damages clauses for confidentiality breaches in white-label deals
- Lesson 2: Require confidentiality training for all reseller staff with customer contact
- Lesson 3: Establish clear territory or customer conflict resolution procedures
- Lesson 4: Consider "lead registration" systems to avoid overlap in prospects
The Due Diligence That Went Right
How proper NDAs enabled a smooth acquisitionThe Situation
A healthcare SaaS company ("MedStack") was approached by a larger competitor for acquisition. The acquirer needed deep technical due diligence including source code review, architecture documentation, and customer data analysis. MedStack had previously been burned by a failed acquisition where the "buyer" used the DD information to build a competing product.
The NDA Approach
MedStack implemented a comprehensive DD NDA including: (1) strict non-compete during and 2 years after DD, (2) named individual access only with personal liability, (3) virtual data room with watermarking and download restrictions, (4) code review in supervised environment only - no copies, (5) break-up fee if deal didn't close after reaching certain DD milestones.
Outcome
Successful acquisition. The comprehensive NDA gave both parties confidence to share sensitive information freely. The deal closed smoothly. Post-acquisition, MedStack's founders noted that the robust NDA actually accelerated the process - the acquirer's legal team appreciated the thoroughness and spent less time negotiating terms.
- Lesson 1: Comprehensive NDAs can accelerate deals by building trust early
- Lesson 2: Technical controls (data rooms, watermarking) complement legal protections
- Lesson 3: Break-up fees aligned with DD milestones protect against "window shopping"
- Lesson 4: Named individual access creates personal accountability beyond corporate liability
The API Key That Ended Up on GitHub
When credential management fails despite NDAsThe Situation
A payments API provider ("PayAPI") shared production API keys with an integration partner. A junior developer at the partner company accidentally committed the keys to a public GitHub repository. Within hours, fraudulent transactions appeared. PayAPI's security team caught it quickly, but not before $23,000 in fraudulent charges.
The NDA Issue
PayAPI's credential access agreement required "reasonable security measures" but didn't specify: (1) pre-commit hooks to prevent secret exposure, (2) credential rotation schedules, (3) specific liability for credential breaches, or (4) insurance requirements for partners handling production keys.
Outcome
Partial recovery. PayAPI recovered most losses through the partner's business insurance, but the claim took 8 months to process. The partner relationship survived but PayAPI now requires: mandatory secret scanning tools, quarterly credential rotation, and minimum $1M cyber liability insurance from all production API partners.
- Lesson 1: Require specific technical controls for credential handling, not just "reasonable measures"
- Lesson 2: Mandate pre-commit hooks and secret scanning tools for any partner with production access
- Lesson 3: Require cyber liability insurance with minimums based on potential exposure
- Lesson 4: Implement credential rotation and access logging regardless of contractual requirements
Protect Your Software IP
Don't let your company become a cautionary tale. Generate a comprehensive NDA tailored to your situation.
Generate Your NDA