WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 14 ruled that a federal district court did not err in dismissing a plaintiff’s trade secret misappropriation and unjust enrichment claims as time-barred pursuant to Ohio’s uniform trade secret law because the plaintiff failed to bring the claim within the necessary statute of limitations period (Josef Maatuk v. Emerson Electric Inc., et al., No. 19-1615, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24142).
ATLANTA — An 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals judge on Aug. 12 denied a plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in a trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous (Albert N. Heichberger v. Tracey Baerman, et al., No. 19-12055, 11th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24005).
SAN FRANCISCO — Defendants in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit brought by BladeRoom Group Limited (BRG) and its United Kingdom (UK) parent company each filed notices of appeal in California federal court on Aug. 12, the same day that a federal judge in California issued a judgment ordering the defendants to pay more than $77 million in damages and prejudgment interest (BladeRoom Group Limited, et al. v. Emerson Electric Co., et al., No. 15-1370, N.D. Calif.).
HOUSTON — A federal judge in Texas on Aug. 6 ruled that a software company’s former employee breached a confidentiality agreement related to material used in hydraulic fracturing simulation applications that may contain trade secrets. However, the judge said the scope of the breach must be determined at trial (M-I LLC v. Q’Max Solutions Inc., et al., No. 18-1099, S.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131275).
DENVER — A federal judge in Colorado on Aug. 5 approved a consent order that settled a trade secret violation case between a hydraulic fracturing company and its former employees as the company agreed to pay $1,625,000 in unpaid compensation and the former employees agreed not to use the information they took (Wolf Resources LLC v. Cody Derner, et al., No. 19-515, D. Colo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130043).
MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge in Minnesota on July 24 ruled that a creator of hemostatic products has sufficiently pleaded that its competitor misappropriated its trade secret information in a patent application for a new product in violation of state and federal trade secret laws after receiving the information during acquisition discussions in violation of a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) (Protégé Biomedical LLC v. Z-Medica LLC, No. 18-3227, D. Minn., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122986).
AUSTIN, Texas — Ruling that the Republic of Korea is an “adequate and available forum” for a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit against a Korean company and individual, a federal judge in Texas on July 29 granted a defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Primacy Engineering Inc. v. SAN Engineering, et al., No. 18-129, W.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125646).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on July 30 ruled that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the Democratic National Committee (DNC) from holding members of President Donald Trump’s family, his presidential campaign and certain of its members, Wikileaks and others liable as second-level participants in the dissemination of confidential and trade secret materials stolen by the Russian Federation in a massive hacking campaign leading up to the 2016 presidential election (Democratic National Committee v. The Russian Federation, et al., No. 18-3501, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126888).
SHERMAN, Texas — A defendant in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and its subsidiary is not entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs because a federal judge in Texas entered a take-nothing judgment for both sides and, thus, the defendant was not a prevailing party, the plaintiffs argue in a July 26 opposition brief filed in Texas federal court (Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., et al. v. Yiren Ronnie Huang, et al., No. 17-0893, E.D. Texas).
NEW ORLEANS — Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. sued a former employee in Louisiana federal court on July 24, seeking a preliminary injunction preventing the defendant from continuing to misappropriate its trade secret customer information and to “preserve the status quo ante” pending arbitration before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel (Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. v. Alfredo J. Martinez, No. 19-11831, E.D. La.).
TRENTON, N.J. — A federal judge in New Jersey on July 19 ruled that transferring a trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract lawsuit to Alabama federal court is necessary because both public and private factors weigh in favor of transferring the trade secret claims pursuant to 28 U.S. Code Section 1404(a) (Eddie Kane Steel Products Inc. v. Alabama Plate Cutting Co. Inc., et al., No. 18-15167, D. N.J., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121758).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on July 19 declined to exclude opinions by an expert on damages in a trade secrets dispute between competing companies that operate online chat services after finding that the expert’s methods are reliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (LivePerson, Inc. v. 7.ai, Inc., No. 17-cv-01268, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121005).
LOS ANGELES — A production company sued toymaker Mattel Inc. in California federal court on July 2, alleging that Mattel misappropriated the company’s trade secret information and stole its idea for a television show that the company was seeking to produce to produce a substantially similar show with another company (Herrick Production LLC v. Mattel Inc., et al., No. BC689290, Calif. Super., Los Angeles Co.).
DENVER — A federal judge in Colorado on July 16 ruled that a developer of research and development (R&D) tax credit software has failed to sufficiently show that it will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not granted against its client and two of the client’s chief officers in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit (Titan Manufacturing Solutions Inc. v. National Cost Inc., et al., No. 19-1749, D. Colo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118114).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Supreme Court review of a federal circuit court’s ruling upholding the issuance of a punitive sua sponte terminating sanctions order (TSO) in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit is warranted because doing so will allow the Supreme Court to clarify that its ruling in National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club Inc. does not authorize the use of civil sanctions to “punish or deter,” petitioners argue in a July 3 petition for writ of certiorari (Loop AI Labs Inc., et al. v. Anna Gatti, et al., No. 19-59, U.S. Sup., 2019 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2501).
NEWARK, N.J. — In a July 2 opinion, a federal judge in New Jersey ruled that a steel rack systems manufacturer has sufficiently shown that the court has personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims against its former employee in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit, but not for claims against the former employee’s current employer based on the former employee’s signing of a noncompetition agreement (Frazier Industrial Co. v. Nicklaus M. Logrecco, et al., No. 18-12426, D. N.J., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112233).
RICHMOND, Va. — Without providing further detail, a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 16 denied a petition for rehearing filed by a defendant in a lawsuit brought by its former subcontractors who alleged that the defendant conspired with a third party to engage in a bid-rigging scheme using the plaintiffs’ confidential and trade secret information (L-3 Communications Corp., et al. v. Serco Inc., No. 18-1423, 4th Cir.).
BATON ROUGE, La. — Arguing that they have been unable to meet their burden of proof, government prosecutors on July 15 asked a federal judge in Louisiana to dismiss an indictment against two scientists that were alleged to have conspired to steal their former employer’s proprietary Mississippi Delta environmental modeling software (United States of America v. Ehab Meselhe, et al., No. 19-cr-61, M.D. La.).
ST. LOUIS — AT&T Services Inc. and DirectTV LLC on July 11 hit a consultant to television stations in retransmission consent negotiations with a lawsuit in Missouri federal court, claiming that the defendant breached the terms of a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) and misappropriated the plaintiffs’ trade secrets by disclosing the terms of AT&T’s confidential rates and contract terms during retransmission consent agreement (RCA) negotiations (AT&T Services Inc., et al. v. Max Retrans LLC, No. 19-1925, E.D. Mo.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California on July 11 granted a motion for a stay of a trade secrets misappropriation lawsuit filed by a semiconductor producer against a Taiwanese dynamic random access memory (DRAM) products manufacturer and its business partner pending the resolution of a related criminal proceeding against the defendants because the risk of prejudice to those defendants is substantial (Micron Technology Inc. v. United Microelectronics Corp., et al., No. 17-6932, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74527).