Mealey's Trade Secret : Mealey's : Legal News & Analysis

Mealey's Trade Secret

December 24, 2019
Counts In Trade Secret Theft Criminal Suit Survive Dismissal Attempt

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California on Dec. 19 ruled that dismissal of an aiding and abetting theft of trade secrets claim against a defendant in a theft of trade secrets criminal action is not warranted because the claim does not suffer from duplicity as the defendant alleged (United States v. Xanthe Lam, et al., No. CR 18-00527, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219292).
December 20, 2019
Judge Rejects Acquittal Bid By Defendant In Trade Secret Theft Suit

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Dec. 17 ruled that government prosecutors presented sufficient evidence at the trial of a businessman with ties to a Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) marine technology company who was charged with theft of trade secrets from an American competitor in the marine technology industry to support his conviction on the charge (United States v. Shan Shi, et al., No. 17-110[CRC], D. D.C.).
December 20, 2019
Recusal, Reconsideration Motions In Trade Secret, Copyright Dispute Denied

SAN DIEGO — A federal judge in California on Dec. 17 ruled that “no reasonable person would conclude” that he was not impartial in his handling of a trade secret misappropriation and Copyright Act lawsuit and determined that the owner of a sole-proprietorship failed to sufficiently show that reconsideration of the judge’s order dismissing her claims in an amended complaint is necessary (Sara Elizabeth Siegler v. Sorrento Therapeutics Inc., et al., No. 18-1681, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216776).
December 20, 2019
Parties Seek Appellate Review Of Several Issues In Trade Secret, Contract Dispute

NEW ORLEANS — Parties in a breach of contract and trade secret lawsuit brought by a digital marketing firm against its former employee and industry competitor recently asked a Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel to determine whether a federal district court erred in issuing several rulings before and after a trial that resulted in a $287,000 judgment in favor of the plaintiff (Six Dimensions Inc. v. Perficient Inc., et al., No. 19-20505, 5th Cir.)
December 19, 2019
Agent’s Customer List Was Not A Trade Secret, Idaho Supreme Court Rules

BOISE, Idaho — An Idaho state trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff on a trade secret misappropriation counterclaim in a declaratory relief action filed by an insurance company’s former agent because a list of prospective clients the agent compiled after his termination from the company, which contained some of the company’s customers that he later solicited while working for a competitor does not constitute a trade secret, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled Dec. 17 (Brian D. Trumble v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Idaho, et al., No. 46133, Idaho Sup., 2019 Ida. LEXIS 231).
December 19, 2019
Sales Representative Alleged To Have Misused Former Employer’s Trade Secrets

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A provider of court reporting and trial litigation support and related services sued one of its former sales representatives and others in North Carolina federal court on Dec. 17, alleging that the former employee breached the terms of his employment contract with the plaintiff and misappropriated its trade secrets in soliciting its clients and independent contractors on behalf of an industry competitor (Huseby LLC v. Lee Bailey, et al., No. 19-690, W.D. N.C.).
December 19, 2019
Medical Cannabis Company Sues Former CEO Over Alleged Trade Secret Theft

PHOENIX — A medical cannabis company and certain of its related assets sued the company’s former CEO in Arizona federal court on Dec. 10, alleging that the defendant misappropriated hundreds of thousands of documents containing the company’s confidential and trade secret information in violation of state and federal trade secret laws (AZ DP Holdings LLC, et al. v. Sara Gullickson, No. 19-5786, D. Ariz.).
December 18, 2019
9th Circuit Affirms Injunction In Trade Copyright Dispute

SAN FRANCISCO — A software company was properly awarded a preliminary injunction barring its former employees and their new employer from disclosing or using source code acquired during their employment, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Dec. 16 (Softketeers Inc. v. Regal West Corporation, et al., No. 19-55529, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 37079).
December 18, 2019
PhRMA Asks Court To Find That Oregon’s Drug-Pricing Laws Are Unconstitutional

EUGENE, Ore. — The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) on Dec. 9 filed a complaint asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to declare that state’s drug price disclosure laws are unconstitutional (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Lou Savage, et al., No. 19-1996, D. Ore.).
December 17, 2019
Trade Secret Claim Narrowly Survives Dismissal Bid In Misappropriation Suit

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Plaintiffs in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit against a nonprofit hospital authority and others have sufficiently identified trade secrets that the defendants are alleged to have misappropriated and, although minimally, have sufficiently shown that they took the necessary steps to protect the confidentiality of those trade secrets, a North Carolina judge ruled Dec. 13 (Southeast Anesthesiology Consultants PLLC, et al. v. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, et al., No. 18 CVS 5899, N.C. Super, Mecklenburg Co., 2019 NCBC LEXIS 107).
December 17, 2019
Judgment In Trade Secret Suit Sought Based On Tech Company’s Shaky Evidence

SAN FRANCISCO — Defendants in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit filed by mobile payment processor Citcon USA LLC on Dec. 15 asked a federal judge in California to grant judgment as a matter of law in their favor on claims that they misappropriated Citcon’s source code and point-of-service (POS) device trade secrets because Citcon failed to provide any sufficient evidence at trial in support any of the claims (Citcon USA LLC v. RiverPay Inc., et al., No. 18-2585, N.D. Calif.).
December 16, 2019
UCL, Trade Secret Claims Dismissed In Suit Alleging Solicitation Of Elderly Investors

SAN JOSE, Calif. — A federal judge in California on Dec. 12 granted a limited liability corporation’s motion to dismiss claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, violation of California’s unfair competition law and intentional interference with contractual relations in a lawsuit alleging that it used “aggressive, predatory tactics” to solicit the plaintiffs’ elderly limited partners to sell their limited partnership interest (Moreland Apartments Associates, et al. v. LP Equity LLC, No. 19-00744, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214591).
December 13, 2019
Summary Judgment Granted On IP Use Contract Breach, Trade Secret Claims

WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware Superior Court judge on Dec. 10 ruled in a breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation lawsuit that a genomic services company was on inquiry notice that a former customer had allegedly violated the terms of a product access agreement when it continued to use the and access the plaintiff’s intellectual property (IP) more than three years before filing its lawsuit (Ocimum Biosolutions (India) Limited, et al. v. AstraZeneca UK Limited, No. N15C-08-168, Del. Super.).
December 12, 2019
SaaS Provider’s Contract Breach, Misappropriation Claims Survive Dismissal Bid

BOISE, Idaho — A federal judge in Idaho on Nov. 25 ruled that a “Software-as-a-Service” (SaaS) provider has sufficiently shown that a federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over its claims against a former employee in a breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation lawsuit because the amount-in-controversy requirement has been met and the plain language of an arbitration clause contained in the defendant’s employment agreement allows for the provider to bring the lawsuit seeking injunctive relief (NAVEX Global Inc. v. Richard A. Stockwell Jr., No. 19-382, D. Idaho, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206814).
December 12, 2019
Timely Trade Secret Misappropriation Claims Survive Dismissal Bid

SAN DIEGO — A federal judge in California on Dec. 2 ruled that a company’s state and federal trade secret misappropriation law claims against its former employee and a competitor are not time-barred because no evidence exists at this stage in the litigation showing that the company was aware, or should have been aware, that the defendants’ publication of a patent application itself constituted the necessary constructive notice of the alleged misappropriation (Javo Beverage Co. Inc. v. California Extraction Ventures Inc., et al., No. 19-1859, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207483).
December 10, 2019
Home Security Provider Sues Former Exec For Trade Secret Misappropriation

PITTSBURGH — A home security provider sued its former director of operations and an industry competitor and its president in Pennsylvania federal court on Dec. 6, alleging that the former employee stole its trade secrets and intends to sell the trade secrets and confidential information to the competitor in violation of state and federal trade secret laws (S.V.B. Associates Inc. v. Robert J. Lomb, et al., No. 19-1575, W.D. Pa.).
December 10, 2019
Engineered Wood Product Manufacturer’s TRO Request Against Former Exec Granted

SEATTLE — A federal judge in Washington on Dec. 6 granted in part and denied in part an engineered wood product manufacturer’s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against a former executive, enjoining the defendant from any future dissemination of the manufacturer’s confidential and trade secret information (Pacific Woodtech Corp. v. Daniel Semsak, No. 19-1984, W.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210880).
December 09, 2019
Mortgage Lender Names Former Employee, Competitor In Trade Secret Dispute

FRESNO, Calif. — A mortgage lender sued a former employee and its direct competitor in California federal court on Dec. 5, alleging that the defendants misappropriated its confidential and trade secret customer client lists in an attempt to solicit business away from the lender in violation of state and federal trade secret laws (Karpe Mortgage Inc. v. Steven Taylor Nettles, No. 19-883, E.D. Calif.).
December 06, 2019
Magistrate: Heating Element Maker’s Trade Secret Claims Are Sufficiently Pleaded

WILMINGTON, Del. — A manufacturer of heating elements for items such as household appliances has sufficiently stated the elements of its state and federal trade secret misappropriation claims against a competitor that it alleges improperly obtained its confidential and trade secret information pertaining to heating elements the manufacturer designed for client Whirlpool Inc. under the terms of a supply agreement and a mutual nondisclosure agreement (NDA), a federal magistrate judge in Delaware said in a Dec. 5 report and recommendation (Zoppas Industries de Mexico S.A. de C.V. v. Backer EHP Inc., No. 18-1693, D. Del., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209455).
December 04, 2019
Company Misappropriated Cocaine-Based Anesthetic Trade Secrets, Drug Maker Says

PHILADELPHIA — A specialty pharmaceutical company sued its former business partner on Nov. 29 in a Pennsylvania federal court, alleging that the defendant misappropriated the company’s trade secret information pertaining to its cocaine hydrochloride 4 percent solution product and allowed the company’s competitors to use the information in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) (Genus Lifesciences Inc. v. Mallinckrodt LLC, et al., No. 19-5403, E.D. Pa.).
December 04, 2019
Pennsylvania Federal Judge Enjoins Petitions For Trademark Cancellation

PITTSBURGH — A trademark infringement counterclaimant on Dec. 3 won a preliminary injunction barring a false advertising plaintiff from prosecuting a petition to cancel “The Big Switch” and “Big Switch” trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (Mazcon v. BEG Group LLC, et al., No. 19-40, W.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207942).
December 03, 2019
Certification Of Order Denying Dismissal Motion For DTSA Claim Denied

ST. LOUIS — A federal magistrate judge in Missouri on Nov. 27 rejected a motion filed by defendants in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit to certify a previous ruling for interlocutory review, holding that the earlier ruling denying dismissal of a claim for violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) “does not involve a controlling question of law appropriate for” such an appeal (Roeslein & Associates Inc., et al. v. Thomas Elgin, et al., No. 17-1351, E.D. Mo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205720).
December 02, 2019
Former Broker-Dealer Employee Denied Summary Judgment On Trade Secret Claims

TAMPA, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida on Nov. 25 ruled that a former CEO and consultant of related securities broker-dealers is not entitled to summary judgment on claims for violation of state and federal trade secret laws because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the alleged trade secrets he is alleged to have misappropriated, in fact, constitute trade secrets (Hurry Family Revocable Trust, et al. v. Christopher Frankel, No. 18-2869, M.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203773).
December 02, 2019
Federal Judge Rejects UCL, Sherman Act Counterclaims In Trade Secret Dispute

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California on Nov. 26 granted a medical technology company’s motion to strike and/or dismiss counterclaims under the Sherman Act and California’s unfair competition law (UCL) in its lawsuit alleging that a company used its confidential, proprietary and trade secret information to develop a line of spectral flow cytometers (Becton, Dickinson and Company v. Cytek Biosciences Inc., et al., No. 18-00933, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205465).
November 26, 2019
Judge Orders ‘Closed’ Response To Interrogatory In Patent, Trade Secret Dispute

AKRON, Ohio — A federal judge in Ohio on Nov. 21 ruled that a company that develops self-inflating tire technology is required to supply a “closed” response to an interrogatory filed by defendants in a patent inventorship and trade secret misappropriation lawsuit describing in sufficient detail what trade secrets were alleged orally disclosed to the defendants in two 2009 meetings set up to discuss the parties’ potential partnership in the commercialization of the plaintiff’s technology (CODA Development s.r.o., et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, et al., No. 15-1572, N.D. Ohio, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202114).