NEWARK, N.J. — A federal judge in New Jersey on April 23 substantially upheld an arbitration award in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit, ruling that the arbitrator did not violate provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in determining the final arbitration award (Sabre GLBL Inc. v. Melody Shan, No. 15-8900, D. N.J., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68010).
NEW ORLEANS — A federal judge in Louisiana on April 20 ruled that a defendant has failed to provide any evidential support for its counterclaims in a breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit and has not shown that any of the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed as untimely (Wright’s Well Control Services LLC v. Oceaneering International Inc., No. 15-1720, E.D. La., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66818).
SAN FRANCISCO — A man who was convicted of computer fraud and trade secret theft against his former employer filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in support of his emergency motion for release from custody to pursue an appeal of a trial court’s denial of his motion for a writ of error coram nobis (United States v. David Nosal, No. 18-10089, 9th Cir.).
HOUSTON — A divided Texas appellate panel on April 19 reversed a $4.5 million award of exemplary damages in a hydraulic fracturing trade secret misappropriation case, finding that the evidence did not support a finding of malice. The panel affirmed the other aspects of the lower court’s decision (Eagle Oil & Gas Co., et al. v. Shale Exploration LLC, No. 01-15-00888, Texas App., 1st Dist.; 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 2779).
SAN DIEGO — Defendants in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit are not entitled to an award of attorney fees under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) or a provision of the California Penal Code because they were not the prevailing party in the action, which was voluntarily dismissed, a federal judge in California ruled April 19 in denying their motion (Physician’s Surrogacy Inc. v. Kenia German, et al., No. 17-0718, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66232).
DETROIT — A Michigan federal court has both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit against an attorney because the forum-selection clause contained in a confidentiality agreement the attorney signed when representing an automobile equipment manufacturer allows the manufacturer to file the lawsuit in that court, a federal judge in Michigan ruled April 19 in denying the attorney’s motion to dismiss (FCA US LLC v. Patrea Bullock, No. 17-13972, E.D. Mich., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65692).
RICHMOND, Va. — A company’s counterclaims for violation of state and federal trade secret misappropriation laws cannot be dismissed because the company’s competitor has not shown that a list of trade secrets allegedly misappropriated in an amended trial statement of trade secrets was not readily known or readily available through proper means as required, a federal judge in Virginia ruled April 16 in denying the competitor’s summary judgment motion in part (Steves & Sons Inc. v. JELD-WEN Inc., No. 16-0545, E.D. Va., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64196).
CHICAGO — A company’s restrictive covenant in an employment agreement with a former employee the company sued for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets is overly broad and would create and undue hardship on the former employee if it were enforced, a federal judge in Illinois ruled April 17 in granting a motion to dismiss (Medix Staffing Solutions Inc. v. Daniel Dumrauf, No. 17-6648, N.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64813).
CHICAGO — Even though an Illinois federal magistrate judge found that Motorola Solutions Inc. did not waive attorney-client privilege by filing a trade secret misappropriation suit against a competitor, he held in an April 17 ruling that the privilege did not apply to an email sought in discovery because the message did not involve attorneys or legal counsel (Motorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp., et al., No. 1:17-cv-01973, N.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64095).
SAN FRANCISCO — Defendants in a trade secrets misappropriation and patent infringement lawsuit have not shown that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that they will be irreparably harmed if a stay of an injunction order is not granted while appealing a contempt order over their alleged violation of a stipulated protective order (SPO), a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled April 17 in denying the motion (Codexis Inc. v. EnzymeWorks Inc., No. 16-0826, N.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on April 16 dismissed counterclaims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit because the claims are not recognized under English law (SmartStream Technologies Inc. v. Philippe Chambadal, No. 17-2459, S.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63867).
LOS ANGELES — After a hot sauce maker failed to respond to another hot sauce company’s claims for trademark infringement and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), a California federal judge on April 16 entered a default judgment in favor of the company (Tapatio Foods LLC v. Ingrid Veronica Ponce, et al., No. 17-7530, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31864).
DALLAS — A company’s breach of fiduciary duty claim against a former employee in a breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit is not preempted by Texas’ trade secrets law insofar as it states a claim on grounds other than a former employees’ alleged trade secret misappropriation, a federal judge in Texas ruled April 13 in substantially denying the former employee’s partial motion to dismiss (TrueBlue Inc. v. Jared DeRuby, No. 18-0192, N.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62699).
SAN FRANCISCO — A man who was convicted and sentenced to prison for computer fraud and trade secret theft against his former employer filed an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals April 12, seeking release from custody to pursue his appeal of a trial court’s denial of his post-sentencing motions (United States v. David Nosal, No. 18-10089, 9th Cir.).
NEW ORLEANS — A defendant has failed to sufficiently plead facts necessary to support a majority of her counterclaims against a former business partner in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled April 11 in granting in part the former business partner’s motion to dismiss (Kalencom Corp. v. Anne Marie Montagne Shulman, No. 17-5453, E.D. La., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61350).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on March 27 accepted a federal magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in a misappropriation lawsuit that the plaintiff in the action not be awarded damages or declaratory relief because it failed to state any actionable claims (Continental Industries Group Inc. v. Mehmet Autunitic, No. 14-0790, S.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50743).
TEXARKANA, Ark. — A federal judge in Arkansas on April 11 remanded a lawsuit to state court, ruling that although a defendants’ temporary restraining order (TRO) cited Arkansas’ trade secret law, it did not justify removal to federal court because it did not cite any violations of federal copyright law as required under 28 U.S. Code Section 1447(c) (Warren Hanson, et al. v. Steven K. Randall, et al., No. 18-4025, W.D. Ark., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61330).
GREENVILLE, N.C. — The plaintiff in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit against a former employee and a company he formed to compete with his former employer has sufficiently shown that it possessed certain trade secrets and that the defendants obtained and misappropriated those trade secrets in violation of state law, a federal judge in North Carolina ruled April 10 in substantially denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss (Redox Tech LLC v. Earthworks Solutions LLC, et al., No. 17-447, E.D. N.C., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60263).
SAN DIEGO — A California trial court did not err in granting terminating sanctions against a defendant in a defamation and misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit because any lesser remedy would not have properly protected a credit union’s interests after the defendant deleted thousands of digital files that he was required to keep, a California appellate panel ruled in an April 6 unpublished opinion affirming the trial court’s determination (San Diego County Credit Union v. Carlton Roark, No. D071960, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1, 2018 Calif. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2332).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Facebook Inc. has reached a confidential settlement agreement with prefabricated data center manufacturer and installer BladeRoom Group Limited (BRG) to settle claims that Facebook enticed BRG to provide it with BRG’s data center designs and construction methods for its data centers and then used the information to construct a data center in Sweden with another party, according to a docket entry filed April 9 in California federal court (BladeRoom Group Limited, et al. v. Facebook Inc., et al., No. 15-1370, N.D. Calif.).