Mealey's Trade Secret

  • April 16, 2020

    Majority Of Claims Survive Dismissal Bid In Trade Secret, Patent Lawsuit

    WILMINGTON, Del. — A federal magistrate judge in Delaware on April 13 ruled that state and federal trade secret law claims brought by a medical device maker against its competitor and the competitor’s founder are not time-barred by the statute of limitations because the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that the plaintiff knew or should have known that their confidential and trade secret information was allegedly being misappropriated any earlier than they did (Progressive Sterilization LLC v. Turbett Surgical LLC, No. 19-627, D. Del., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64574).

  • April 15, 2020

    Defendants In Trade Secrets Dispute Ordered To Turn Over Devices, Accounts

    PHILADELPHIA — A federal magistrate judge in Pennsylvania on April 8 ordered defendants in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit to turn over access to certain devices and accounts belonging to a former executive officer of a custom label printing company that the former executive stated he used to copy the company’s trade secrets before resigning and accepting a job at an industry competitor (Lux Global Label Co. LLC v. James H. Shacklett IV, et al., No. 18-5061, E.D. Pa., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62200).

  • April 14, 2020

    Crop Insurer Found To Have Failed To Plead Plausible Trade Secret Law Claims

    KANSAS CITY, Kan. — A federal judge in Kansas on April 13 ruled that a crop insurer failed to sufficiently plead its claims for state and federal trade secret law violations against a former employee because, although the insurer has shown that the former employee had access to its trade secrets and accessed those trade secrets before resigning and accepting employment with a competitor, it has failed to plausibly show that the former employee misappropriated those trade secrets (CGB Diversified Services Inc. v. Kane Adams, No. 20-2061, D. Kan., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64132).

  • April 14, 2020

    Crop Insurer Found To Have Failed To Plead Plausible Trade Secret Law Claims

    KANSAS CITY, Kan. — A federal judge in Kansas on April 13 ruled that a crop insurer failed to sufficiently plead its claims for state and federal trade secret law violations against a former employee because, although the insurer has shown that the former employee had access to its trade secrets and accessed those trade secrets before resigning and accepting employment with a competitor, it has failed to plausibly show that the former employee misappropriated those trade secrets (CGB Diversified Services Inc. v. Kane Adams, No. 20-2061, D. Kan., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64132).

  • April 13, 2020

    Genetics Knowledge May Be Considered Trade Secrets Under DTSA, Judge Rules

    FORT MYERS, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida on April 10 ruled that a commercial shrimp breeding business has shown that its genetics knowledge may be considered a trade secret under state and federal trade secrets laws, denying a former business partner and others’ motion for summary judgment (PB Legacy Inc., et al. v. American Mariculture Inc., et al., No. 17-9, M.D. Fla., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62947).

  • April 09, 2020

    Take-Nothing Judgment In Breach Of Contract, Trade Secret Dispute Affirmed

    HOUSTON — A Texas trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an electrical transmission lines construction company’s request for injunctive relief against a former employee for alleged violations of Texas trade secret law and the terms of his employment agreement, a Texas appellate panel ruled April 7 in affirming the trial court’s take-nothing judgment (Thomas Malone v. PLH Group Inc., et al., No. 01-19-00016-CV, Texas App., 1st Dist., 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 2883).

  • April 07, 2020

    Newspaper Denied New Trial In Remanded FOIA Suit Over Confidential USDA Data

    SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — A South Dakota federal judge on April 1 declined to order a new trial in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA) on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that she was bound by the high court’s ruling and finding that the plaintiff newspaper failed to establish that any unresolved issues remained (Argus Leader Media v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 4:11-cv-04121, D. S.D., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57710).

  • April 07, 2020

    Chinese Firm Seeks Post-Verdict Relief In Trade Secret, Copyright Dispute

    CHICAGO — A federal jury improperly awarded Motorola Solutions Inc. nearly $246 million in disgorgement under federal trade secret and copyright law even though such relief “is an equitable remedy not triable of right by a jury,” a Chinese firm and two of its affiliates accused of trade secret theft and copyright infringement argue in an April 2 motion for judgment as a matter of law as to liability and/or damages filed in Illinois federal court (Motorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp., et al., No. 1:17-cv-01973, N.D. Ill.).

  • April 06, 2020

    Panel: Trade Secret Claim Not Dependent On Resolution Of Patent Law Question

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal district court erred in denying remand of a trade secret misappropriation suit because a technology company’s trade secret claim was not dependent on the resolution of “a substantial question of federal patent law,” a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled April 3 in reversing and remanding (Intellisoft Ltd., et al. v. Acer America Corp., et al., No. 19-1522, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10511).

  • April 06, 2020

    Defendant Seeks New Trial On Issue Of Liability In Trade Secrets Lawsuit

    TAMPA, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida should grant a defendant in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit a new trial on the question of liability because a jury’s verdict awarding a technology company $5.7 million in damages was not in line with the evidence presented at trial, the defendant argues in an April 2 motion for new trial and for judgment as a matter of law as to damages filed in Florida federal court (Financial Information Technologies Inc. v. iControl Systems USA LLC, No. 17-190, M.D. Fla.).

  • April 02, 2020

    Parties Debate Assignability Of Trademark Consent Decree In Supreme Court Briefs

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an April 2 opposition brief, a water quality firm tells the U.S. Supreme Court that the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals correctly found that it was the assignee of a 2003 consent judgment that pertained to trademarks and trade secrets at issue in the present suit, asking the high court to deny a petition for certiorari raising questions of assignability and enforcement of such consent decrees (M.W. Watermark LLC, et al. v. Evoqua Water Technologies LLC, No. 19-1079, U.S. Sup.).

  • April 01, 2020

    Judge: Company Pleaded Existence Of Trade Secrets Under State, Federal Law

    SEATTLE — A federal judge in Washington on March 30 ruled that a medical imaging systems manufacturer and two of its subsidiaries have sufficiently stated their claims for trade secret misappropriation in violation of state and federal law because they have properly pleaded that certain software and systems they manufacture for their ultrasound hardware devices are trade secrets (Philips North America LLC v. Summit Imaging Inc., et al., No. 19-1745, W.D. Wash., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55073).

  • March 30, 2020

    CBD Manufacturer’s Trade Secret Law Claims Survive Dismissal Bid

    WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida on March 27 ruled that a cannabidiol-based (CBD) products manufacturer has sufficiently shown that a former customer misappropriated its proprietary CBD cream formula in violation of state and federal trade secret laws when the former customer began developing its CBD-based pain cream with a third party and cut the manufacturer out of a business relationship in which the parties had been involved (Healthcare Resources Management Group LLC v.. EcoNatura All Healthy World LLC, et al., No. 19-81700, S.D. Fla.).

  • March 30, 2020

    Company’s Insufficiently Pleaded Federal Trade Secret Claim Dismissed

    SAN DIEGO — A federal judge in California held that a semiconductor company failed to sufficiently plead the existence of any trade secret that it alleges four former employees misappropriated or that the former employees actually misappropriated the trade secret in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) when they left their positions with the company to accept similar positions with an industry competitor (Power Integrations Inc. v. Edison D. De Lara, No. 20-410, S.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52724).

  • March 27, 2020

    Lack Of Specific Jurisdiction Leads To Dismissal Of Claims In Trade Secrets Suit

    SAN DIEGO — A pharmacy benefit management (PBM) services provider and its subsidiaries failed to sufficiently show that a federal district court has specific jurisdiction over claims against a former business partner and its subsidiary and others stemming from a failed joint venture agreement because the plaintiffs have not properly pleaded that the defendants purposefully directed their actions at the forum state, a federal judge in California ruled March 24 (MedImpact Healthcare Systems Inc., et al. v. IQVIA Holdings Inc., et al., No. 19-1865, S.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50955).

  • March 26, 2020

    Ohio High Court:  Lodestar Enhancement Not Warranted In Trade Secret Suit

    COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court on March 25 ruled that pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Perdue v. Kenny, a state appellate court erred in affirming an attorney fee award in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit that included a lodestar enhancement because the determined lodestar was reasonable for the services rendered by the attorneys representing the winning party in the action (Phoenix Lighting Group LLC, et al. v. Genlyte Thomas Group LLC, et al., No. 2020-Ohio-1056, Ohio Sup., 2020 Ohio LEXIS 730).

  • March 24, 2020

    Consulting Business Sues Former Franchisee For Alleged DTSA Violations

    LOUISVILLE, Ky. — An international franchise consulting organization sued a former associate and franchisee in Kentucky federal court on March 20, alleging that the defendants violated the terms of an associated agreement by misappropriating the organization’s confidential and proprietary customer and business information to benefit a direct competitor in violation of state and federal trade secret laws (FranNet LLC v. Douglas Grant, et al., No. 20-203, W.D. Ky.).

  • March 24, 2020

    DTSA Claim, Other Claims Survive Dismissal Bid In Misappropriation Suit

    NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on March 20 ruled that a company in the translation services industry has sufficiently identified trade secrets and has properly shown that its industry competitor misappropriated those trade secrets in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) after improperly obtaining them during a court-ordered auction of stockholder shares (TransPerfect Global Inc. v. Lionbridge Technologies Inc., et al., No. 19-3283, S.D. N.Y.).

  • March 20, 2020

    Former Google Engineer Reaches Plea Deal On Trade Secret Theft Charges

    SAN FRANCISCO — Former Google LLC engineer Anthony Levandowski has reached a plea deal in a criminal proceeding stemming from his alleged theft of self-driving automobile technology trade secret information from his former employer and misappropriation of the trade secrets in forming a competing company that was later purchased by Uber Technologies Inc., according to briefing filed by government prosecutors on March 19 in California federal court (United States v. Anthony Scott Levandowski, No. 19-cr-377, N.D. Calif.).

  • March 20, 2020

    Claims Pleading Guidance Provided To Parties In Trade Secret, Copyright Suit

    SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California issued guidance to parties in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit on March 5, ruling that once an operator of a home design website reasserts its previously dismissed copyright claims in a separate lawsuit, the newly filed lawsuit would be “related to, and consolidated with, the trade secret claims still pending” in the instant action (UAB “Planner 5D” v. Facebook Inc., et al., No. 19-3132, N.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38524).

Can't find the article you're looking for? Click here to search the Mealey's Trade Secret archive.