SAN FRANCISCO — Dismissal of nonpatent claims in a patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit is proper because a company has failed to show that the alleged misappropriation of its trade secrets occurred after the enactment of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), a federal judge in California ruled April 24 in granting in part and denying in part a defendant’s motion to dismiss (Cave Consulting Group Inc. v. Truven Health Analytics Inc., No. 15-2177, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62109).
SHERMAN, Texas — A federal judge in Texas on April 21 rejected a company’s motion to quash depositions and for a protective order in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit, ruling that a discovery order is now moot after the company responded to the order and stopped depositions from taking place in the action (North American Deer Registry Inc. v. DNA Solutions Inc., No. 17-0062, E.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61043).
MIAMI — Multispecialty, post-acute physician group owner Vohra Health Services P.A sued one of its former employees and one of its competitors — the current employer of the former employee — in Florida state court on April 5, alleging that the defendants violated Florida trade secrets law by performing wound care services using the confidential and proprietary information the former employee obtained from Vohra in violation of his employment agreement with Vohra (Vohra Health Services P.A. v. Louis Mazzella, MD, et al., No. 2017-008241-CA-01, Fla. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Chinese chauffeured car service provider UCAR Technology (USA) Inc. has failed to show that it will sustain irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit, a federal judge in California ruled April 19 in denying UCAR’s request for a preliminary injunction (UCAR Technology [USA] Inc., et al. v. Yan Li, et al., No. 17-1704, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59965).
SALT LAKE CITY — Defendants in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit have failed to show that no genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether they violated Utah’s trade secrets statute in producing bread products using the trade secrets owned by another company, a federal judge in Utah ruled April 12 (Bimbo Bakeries Inc. v. Leland Sycamore, et al., No. 13-749, D. Utah, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57861).
DETROIT — A Michigan appellate panel on April 18 substantially reversed and vacated a trial court’s summary disposition ruling in a trade secrets lawsuit, holding that the trial court erred in finding that a company’s unfair competition claim was preempted by Michigan’s uniform trade secrets statute (Planet Bingo LLC, et al. v. VKGS LLC, No. 328896, Mich. App., 2017 Mich. App. LEXIS 615).
NEWARK, N.J. — A federal judge in New Jersey on April 17 substantially denied a motion to dismiss filed by defendants in a copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit, ruling that a company has properly pleaded its claims against a majority of the defendants in the action (Jorgensen & Co. v. Gary Sutherland, et al., No. 15-7373, D. N.J., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59108).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Transferring discovery disputes to a Pennsylvania federal judge overseeing an underlying misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit is proper because the judge has requested that all motions challenging subpoenas issued be transferred to him, a federal magistrate judge in California ruled April 12 in granting a company’s motion to transfer discovery disputes against Yahoo! Inc. and Google Inc. (PPG Industries Inc. v. Jiangsu Tie Mao Glass Co. Ltd., Nos. 16-mc-80160 and 16-mc-8016, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56316).
CHICAGO — A federal judge in Illinois on March 31 substantially rejected post-trial motions in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit over the terms of a confidential information provision of a supply agreement between Caterpillar Inc. and a parts supplier (Miller UK Ltd, et al. v. Caterpillar Inc., No. 10-3770, N.D. Ill, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49929).
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — A fertilizer company’s discovery requests in a subpoena of the owner of a competitor in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit seek irrelevant information and create an undue burden on the owner, a federal magistrate judge in Iowa ruled April 17 in granting the owner’s motion to quash (Nachurs Alpine Solutions Corp., f/k/a Na-Churs Plant Food Co., v. Nutra-Flo Co., et al., No. 15-4015, N.D. Iowa, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58094).
CINCINNATI — Dismissal of state and federal misappropriation of trade secrets claims against a flavor developer for food products and one of its employees is proper because a competitor has failed to show that the flavor developer took part in any of the alleged misappropriations in Ohio, a federal judge in Ohio ruled April 14 in granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss (Gold Medal Products Co. v. Bell Flavors and Fragrances Inc., et al., No. 16-0365, S.D. Ohio, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57640).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A federal judge in California on April 10 denied a financial institution’s request for temporary restraining order (TRO) in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiff failed to show that a TRO is necessary pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court precedent (KCG Americas LLC v. Zhengquan Zhang, No. 17-1953, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54746).
SEATTLE — An advanced technology company moved for temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Port of Seattle on March 17 in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit, seeking to enjoin Seattle from disclosing certain proprietary information the company provided to it as part of a proposal submitted for a noise-monitoring project at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to an industry competitor as part of a public records request the competitor filed (Bruel & Kjaer EMS Inc. v. Port of Seattle, No. 17-430, W.D. Wash.).
ALLENTOWN, Pa. — Defendants have failed to show that dismissal of a Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) claim is warranted in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit because plaintiffs have properly pleaded that the defendants’ ongoing use of stolen trade secrets is within the scope of the statute, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled March 24 in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss all of the federal claims (Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services Inc., et al. v. Irex Contracting Group, et al., No. 16-2499, E.D. Pa., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43497).
SAN FRANCISCO — Without providing further detail, a federal judge in California on April 3 denied an emergency motion to vacate a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit, rejecting the defendants’ claims that they had not previously been made aware of their former employer’s intent to request a TRO (UCAR Technology [USA] Inc., et al. v. Yan Li, et al., No. 17-1704, N.D. Calif.).
FRESNO, Calif. — A California jury on March 22 ruled in favor of Alliant Insurance Services and 10 of its insurance producers on a competing insurance brokerage firm’s cross-claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty, interference with contract and misappropriation of trade secrets (Peter Baldwin, et al. v. Aon Risk Services Companies Inc., et al., No. 14-00572, Calif. Super.).
PASADENA, Calif. — A company raised material triable issues as to whether its customer lists and financial information qualify as trade secrets, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held March 30 in upholding its previous ruling affirming in part and reversing in part a federal district court’s grant of summary judgment (Contemporary Services Corporation v. Landmark Event Staffing Services, Inc., et al., No. 14-56636, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5572).
CHICAGO — An Illinois trial court did not err in denying a defendant’s request for sanctions pursuant to the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (TCA) because the defendant was not a “prevailing party” under the statute, an Illinois appellate panel ruled March 24 in affirming (Matrix Basement Systems Inc. v. Tom Drake, et al., No. 1-15-1831, Ill App., 1st Dist., 6th Div., 2016 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 592).
BOSTON — A stay of certain claims pending arbitration in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit is proper because the claims are based on a defendant’s alleged breach of his employment contract with his former company that included an arbitration agreement, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled March 24 in staying the proceedings on all nonpatent claims (CardioNet LLC, et al. v. InfoBionic Inc., No. 15-11803, D. Mass., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43350).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A brokerage sued one of its former consultants on March 20 in California federal court, alleging that the consultant removed certain confidential and trade secret information from the brokerage before resigning and has used the information in an attempt to solicit customers from it in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) (Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC v. John Nordstrom, et al., No. 17-0295, E.D. Calif.).