CHICAGO — An Illinois federal judge on June 21 denied insurers’ motion to reconsider an earlier ruling that a professional services exclusion does not apply to bar coverage for an underlying lawsuit alleging that a consulting company insured conspired with a competitor’s former employee to use the competitor’s copyrighted material and other confidential information (Caveo, LLC v. Citizens Insurance Company of America, Inc., et al., No. 15-6200, N.D. Ill., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95432).
CHICAGO — A federal magistrate judge in Illinois on June 20 denied a motion to compel filed by defendants in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiff has agreed to provide certain information to the defendants as soon as it is located (PolyOne Corp. v. Yun Martin Lu, et al., No. 14-10369, N.D. Ill., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94508).
PHILADELPHIA — Remand of a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit is warranted because a federal district court failed to consider three of the four necessary factors in determining whether a preliminary injunction is proper, a Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled June 1 in reversing the lower court’s ruling and remanding for reconsideration of the preliminary injunction factors (Fres-co Systems USA Inc. v. Kevin A. Hawkins, et al., No. 16-3591, 3rd Cir.; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9679).
PHILADELPHIA — Defendants in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit failed to show that dismissal of any of the claims against them is appropriate, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled June 16 in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss (E. Frank Hopkins Seafood Co. Inc. v. Elio Olizi, et al., No.17-1558, E.D. Pa., 2017, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92819).
AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas federal judge on June 19 denied a motion for expedited discovery filed by restaurant franchisors, saying that they will receive the information they seek when the defendant files a written update with the court (Stockade Cos. LLC, et al. v. Kelly Restaurant Group LLC, No. 1:17-cv-143, W.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94097).
OKLAHOMA CITY — Parties in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit are required to provide each other with certain discovery information relating to a former employees’ departure from a company and subsequent hiring and duties with a direct competitor, a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled June 16 in granting each party’s motion to compel in part (Maxum Petroleum Inc. v. Stephen Hiatt, et al., No. 17-287, W.D. Okla., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92719).
SEATTLE — Internet retailer Amazon.com Inc. filed a lawsuit on June 16 in a Washington state court against a former vice president of the company’s Amazon Web Services LLC (AWS) subsidiary, claiming that the defendant violated the terms of a noncompetition agreement he signed by accepting an employment position with a competitor (Amazon.com Inc. v. Gene Farrell, No. 17-2-15056-8, Wash. Super., King Co.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A technology company sued a former employee and his current company in California federal court on June 6, alleging that the former employee misappropriated the technology company’s trade secrets in violation of state and federal law (Meta Co. v. Zhangyi Zhong, et al., No. 17-3259, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Dismissal of a California unfair competition law claim in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit is proper because the claim is superseded by a state trade secrets law claim, a federal judge in California ruled June 8 in dismissing the claim (Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., No. 17-0939, N.D. Cali., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89174).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A software company has failed to show that it will suffer irreparable harm unless an injunction is issued preventing defendants in a misappropriation of trade secrets and copyright infringement lawsuit from continuing to misappropriate the company’s confidential and proprietary information a federal judge in Florida ruled June 12 in denying the company’s motion for preliminary injunction (Compulife Software Inc. v. Moses Newman, et al., No. 16-81942, S.D. Fla., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89674).
DENVER — A Colorado federal judge on June 12 entered a final judgment in favor of a professional liability insurer after finding that it has no duty to defend or indemnify against an underlying lawsuit alleging that its insured entered into a “kickback contract” to steer additional subcontractor work to city-employee-controlled companies (Ciber, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co., No. 16-1189, D. Colo., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89895).
KANSAS CITY, Kan. — WoodSpring Hotels LLC, one of its former employees and an information technology consultant will pay $1.2 million in damages, costs and attorney fees to settle claims that they misappropriated certain trade secret information of competitor Extended Stay America LLC in an effort to gain a competitive advantage in certain specific markets, according to a press release issued June 12 by Extended Stay (Extended Stay America Inc., et al. v. WoodSpring Hotels LLC, et al., No. 16-2744, D. Kan.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A federal judge in Delaware on June 9 granted in part and denied in part a partial stay of proceedings in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit against a former employee of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. pending resolution of related criminal proceedings, ruling that the former employee showed that a stay was proper pursuant to five of the six required factors for issuing a stay in the action (E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Anchi Hou, No. 17-224, D. Del., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88566).
OKLAHOMA CITY — A defendant in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit is not entitled to an award of attorney fees because no proper final judgment has been issued in the action, a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled June 8 in denying the defendant’s motion and granting the plaintiff’s motion to strike the motion for attorney fees (Iofina Inc., et al. v. Igor Khalev, et al., No. 14-1328, W.D. Okla., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88079).
NEW YORK — A Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 5 affirmed a federal district court’s ruling pertaining to a defendant’s liability in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit but reserved a ruling on the remaining issues on appeal pending the New York Court of Appeals’ review of two questions certified to the state court pertaining to recovery of damages on misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and unjust enrichment claims (E.J. Brooks Co., d/b/a TydenBrooks, v. Cambridge Security Seals, Nos. 16-207 and 16-259, 2nd Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9885).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A Florida federal court jury on May 11 awarded an institutional research database firm a more than $3.7 million verdict on claims that an investment firm computer software sales and services provider illegally obtained the database firm’s confidential and trade secrets information through use of client login credentials and used the information to compete with the financial data uploading business (eVestment Alliance LLC v. Compass iTech LLC, No. 14-81241, S.D. Fla.).
ATLANTA — A federal district court did not err in granting a permanent injunction in a misappropriation of trade secrets and trademark infringement lawsuit because the plaintiff had given the defendant an opportunity to take remedial action prior to filing its second amended complaint, an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled May 31 in affirming in part, dismissing in part and remanding (AcryliCon USA LLC v. Silikal GmbH & Co., No. 16-11368, 11th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9532).
TRENTON, N.J. — A federal judge in New Jersey on June 2 declined to enforce a proposed settlement agreement in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit, ruling that the parties failed to agree on the terms of the damages provision of the settlement (Idingo LLC, et al. v. Amir Cohen, et al., No. 16-6526, D. N.J., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84798).
RICHMOND, Va. — A federal district court judge did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit and did not err in declining to grant a company’s request for an adverse inference based on the defendants’ spoliation of evidence, a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled May 30 (Integrated Direct Marketing LLC v. Drew May, et al., No. 16-1032, 4th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9369).
TRENTON, N.J. — Dismissal of claims in a misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit is not proper because the plaintiff has either properly pleaded the elements of each claim or further discovery is required to determine whether certain claims are subject to New Jersey or New Hampshire law, a federal judge in New Jersey ruled May 31 in denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss (Astor Chocolate Corp. v. Matthew McCall, No. 16-5010, D. N.J., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82567).