RICHMOND, Va. — A federal judge in Virginia on Oct. 4 ruled that intervenors in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on state and federal trade secret misappropriation counterclaims because the defendant in the action failed to add the intervenors as defendants, identify any triable issues against them or ask a jury to “find them liable and award damages against them” (Steves & Sons Inc. v. JELD-WEN Inc., No. 16-0545, E.D. Va., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172363).
NEW ORLEANS — A federal judge in Louisiana on Oct. 15 ruled that a contract labor provider has sufficiently alleged a plausible claim for relief under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), thus establishing subject matter jurisdiction in a trade secrets misappropriation lawsuit (Complete Logistical Services LLC v. Donald Rulh Jr., et al., No. 18-3799, E.D. La., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176617).
CHICAGO — A health care provider sued its former global marketing product manager in Illinois federal court on Oct. 15, alleging that the defendant violated the terms of his employment agreement with the company and stole its marketing and global expansion “playbook,” intending to use it in his new employment position with the health care provider’s competitor in the chronic pain therapies market in violation of state and federal trade secrets law (Abbott Laboratories v. Blayne Fleck, No. 18-6907, N.D. Ill.).
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — A federal judge in Ohio on Oct. 16 ruled that a franchisee has failed to show that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his interlocutory appeal of the judge’s grant of a preliminary injunction and that any irreparable injury the franchisee may face as a result of the injunctive relief is “self-inflicted” (Handel’s Enterprises Inc. v. Kenneth S. Schulenburg, et al., No. 18-508, N.D. Ohio, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177655).
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — An Ohio federal judge on Oct. 16 denied a motion to stay the enforcement of a preliminary injunction until an appeal of the order granting the franchisor’s motion for a preliminary injunction is decided because the defendant franchisees failed to present any new arguments to rebut the court’s prior finding that the franchisor demonstrated a high likelihood of success on its claims for trademark infringement, trade secret violations and irreparable harm (Handel’s Enterprises Inc. v. Kenneth S. Schulenburg, et al., No. 18-508, N.D. Ohio, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177655).
TAMPA, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida should grant a preliminary injunction in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit barring CVS Pharmacy Inc. and subsidiary Wellpartner LLC from using a U.S. government’s 340B drug pricing program third-party administrator’s confidential and trade secret customer information, the third party argues in an Oct. 12 motion for preliminary injunction in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit filed in a Florida federal court (RxStrategies Inc. v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., et al., No. 18-1087, M.D. Fla.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal magistrate judge in California on Oct. 11 denied a technology company’s preliminary injunction motion against one its former independent contractors in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit, ruling that the company failed to sufficiently show that it is the owner the trade secrets in question (uSens Inc. v. Shi Chi, No. 18-1959, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175570).
HAMMOND, Ind. — Finding multiple discovery violations by the defendants in a dispute over dye and pigment trade secrets, an Indiana federal magistrate judge on Oct. 5 granted the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions in the form of default judgment, finding that the defendants “demonstrated willfulness and bad faith by acting with intentional or reckless disregard for their obligations to comply with the Court’s orders and by resisting discovery” (Apex Colors Inc. v. Chemworld International Limited Inc., et al., No. 2:14-cv-00273, N.D. Ind., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172436).
TAMPA, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida on Oct. 3 ruled that a federal magistrate judge properly determined that a technology company’s state trade secret misappropriation claim is insufficient, in part, because four of the trade secrets the company alleges its competitor misappropriated were publicly disclosed and, thus, cannot form the basis of a state trade secret misappropriation claim (Financial Information Technologies Inc. v. iControl Systems USA LLC, No. 17-190, M.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170808).
SHERMAN, Texas — A federal judge in Texas on Oct. 2 ruled that plaintiffs in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit have plausibly stated their claims against a former employee and their direct competitor to survive a motion to dismiss (Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., et al. v. Yiren Ronnie Huang, et al., No. 17-0893, E.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169957).
SAN FRANCISCO — Reversing a trial court’s ruling, a California appeals panel on Sept. 28 concluded that certain due diligence materials Uber Technologies Inc. obtained prior to acquiring a company started by former Google LLC employees were not privileged and, therefore, must be produced in an underlying arbitration proceeding against employees (Uber Technologies Inc. v. Google LLC, No. A153653, Calif App., 1st Dist., 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 877).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 1 declined to review an appeal of a divided Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling affirming a federal bankruptcy court’s damages awards based on a lost-asset theory for trade secret misappropriation (Edward Mandel v. Steven Thrasher, et al., No. 18-25, U.S. Sup.).
NEW YORK — The forum selection clause in a settlement agreement between parties in a patent ownership and trade secret misappropriation dispute is mandatory and, as a result, dismissal of a financial data processing systems developer’s declaratory judgment and state and federal trade secret misappropriation claims in a subsequent lawsuit is necessary, a federal judge in New York ruled Sept. 20 (NovaSparks SA v. EnyxFGPA, et al., No. 17-7745, S.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164382).
DETROIT — A marketing agency sued one of its former executive officers and her husband/partner in Michigan federal court on Sept. 24, alleging that the defendants engaged in a massive theft of the company’s trade secrets before her departure from the company in violation of state and federal trade secrets laws (Mars Advertising Inc. v. Suzanna Bierwirth, et al., No. 18-12986, E.D. Mich.).
MONTPELIER, Vt. — Redacted information in a financial feasibility study provided by a private developer to a contractor that was hired by the city of Burlington, Vt., to assist the city in assessing the viability of the developer’s plans falls within Vermont exemption for trade secrets under the Vermont Public Records Act (PRA), the Vermont Supreme Court ruled Sept. 21 (Michael Long, et al. v. Burlington, et al., No. 17-434, Vt. Sup., 2018 Vt. LEXIS 146).
NEW YORK — Granting in part a software company’s motion for sanctions, a New York federal magistrate judge on Sept. 19 scolded its former contractor for repeated discovery violations in a lawsuit over trade secret misappropriations, compelling the contractor to produce certain electronically stored information (ESI) and awarding the software firm attorney fees (Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited, et al. v. The TriZetto Group, et al., No. 1:15-cv-00211, S.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160236).
ST. LOUIS — A federal judge in Missouri on Sept. 19 declined to grant a motion to dismiss filed by defendants in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit, rejecting the defendants’ argument that several claims brought were preempted by Missouri’s trade secret law (US Polymers-Accurez LLC v. Kane International Corp., et al., No. 17-2371, E.D. Mo., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159878).
LOS ANGELES — The financial backer for online and gaming talent sued its former business partner in California federal court on Sept. 13, alleging that the business partner breached its fiduciary duty, misappropriated the financial backer’s trade secrets and violated trademark and copyright laws when it attempted a corporate raid of the financial backer’s businesses (Hubrick Limited, et al. v. Wanderset Inc., et al., No. 18-7980, C.D. Calif.).
ROCKVILLE, Md. — A direct response company specializing in Hispanic and direct response marketing sued its former business partner in Maryland state court on Aug. 14, alleging that the partner violated provisions of the business agreement by misappropriating the company’s trade secrets to develop its own Hispanic direct response offering in violation of state and federal trade secrets laws (Omni Direct Inc. v. Creative Direct Response Inc., No. V452873, Md. Cir., Montgomery Co.).
MONROE, La. — A federal judge in Louisiana on Sept. 7 ruled that the plaintiff in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit against its former employee has failed to show that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its state and federal trade secret law claims or that it will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not granted (JJ Plank Co. LLC, et al. v. Gary Bowman, No. 18-0798, W.D. La., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153217).