WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a longstanding dispute over hair treatment products, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 6 ordered a new trial on patent infringement and damages and reversed a denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that L'Oréal USA Inc. misappropriated trade secrets.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Missouri appeals panel on April 6 partly reversed a lower court’s ruling in a commercial general liability insurance coverage dispute arising from an underlying dispute between competitors in the lumber industry, finding that the insureds’ second amended complaint supported claims for bad faith failure to defend and failure to settle.
LAS VEGAS — A federal magistrate judge in Nevada on March 26 signed a stipulated protective order in a software provider’s lawsuit alleging that an insurer and another software provider misappropriated its trade secrets to develop a clone of its flood claims services system application.
BREVARD, N.C. — An anti-phishing software firm filed suit in North Carolina federal court on March 12 against a Dutch company that had been its business partner, asserting trademark and copyright infringement related to computer source code that it says was used to develop new products and that the plaintiff claims belong to it .
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a March 15 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said it found no abuse of discretion in a Florida federal judge’s decision to unseal an amended complaint accusing a competitor of infringing a patented veterinary orthopedic implant.
BALTIMORE — Expert testimony in a trade secret dispute will be limited, a Maryland federal judge ruled Feb. 8, finding that much of the proposed testimony of one expert constitutes inadmissible legal conclusions, with the rebuttal witness’s testimony largely rendered moot, and that challenges to another expert are best resolved through cross-examination.
SAN DIEGO — A federal judge in California on Dec. 22 stayed an insurer’s lawsuit disputing coverage for an underlying copyright infringement and trade secret appropriation action, finding that the three factors in Landis v. N. Am. Co. weigh in favor of a stay pending resolution of the underlying action.
SAN FRANCISCO — In a Dec. 16 holding, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a dismissal of allegations that Google LLC violated the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 when it disclosed engineered architecture (EA) information in patent applications filed in 2011 and published in 2012 (Eli Attia, et al. v. Google LLC, No. 19-15771, 9th Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 39491).
NEW ORLEANS — A Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel in a Nov. 10 unpublished opinion affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a Texas tech company’s trade secret and computer fraud claims against its U.K.-based former CEO, finding that the parties’ agreement calls for arbitration of disputes in London and gives English courts exclusive jurisdiction over those disputes (Fintech Fund, F.L.P. v. Ralph Horne, No. 18-20449, 5th Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 35418).
Dear Mealey’s® Trade Secret Law Report subscribers,
PIERRE, S.D. — A South Dakota trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in a breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit filed by a medical practice management services provider on claims that the certain of the defendants misappropriated the company’s trade secret information after forming a competing business because the company failed to plead its trade secret misappropriation claim with the requisite specificity, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled Oct. 28 (Aqreva LLC v. Eide Bailly LLP, et al., No. 29142, S.D. Sup., 2020 S.D. LEXIS 124).
BALTIMORE — A federal judge in Maryland on Oct. 27 denied a pair motions to dismiss in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit filed by a provider of court security officers (CSOs) for federal courts on behalf of the U.S. Marshal’s Service (USMS), ruling that the material contained in an exhibit in the plaintiff’s complaint, as well as other evidence provided, sufficiently lists the trade secret information the defendants are alleged to have misappropriated (Paragon Systems Inc. v. Michael Hughes, et al., No. 20-1209, D. Md., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199932).
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A defendant in a breach of contract lawsuit will ask the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to weigh in on a federal district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction against her stemming from her alleged violation of certain restrictive covenants she agreed to as part of her employment with an energy drink company, according to a notice of appeal filed Nov. 6 in Florida federal court (Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Christopher Alfieri, et al., No. 20-61307, S.D. Fla.).
PITTSBURGH — A former employee of a transmission electron microscopes (TEM) equipment manufacturer and the company that he formed have misappropriated an industry competitor’s trade secrets and are using those trade secrets to compete with the company in the TEM equipment industry, the company alleges in a complaint filed Oct. 29 in Pennsylvania federal court (E.A. Fischione Instruments Inc. v. Simple Organ Inc., et al., No. 20-1651, W.D. Pa.).
HOUSTON — A federal judge in Texas on Nov. 17 ruled that a firm has failed to present any evidence that a private equity investor misappropriated its trade secret information relating to an oil and gas exploration project for which the firm sought private equity investment because the firm failed to sufficiently plead the existence of a trade secret or that the defendants improperly used the proprietary information provided to them pursuant to the terms of a confidentiality agreement (Recif Resources LLC v. Juniper Capital Advisors LP, et al., No. 19-2953, S.D. Texas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214558).
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California on Nov. 16 ruled that dismissal of counterclaims in a trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract and copyright infringement lawsuit brought by a developer of cyber security productions and its subsidiary is warranted because the defendants failed to sufficiently show that statements made by the plaintiffs to their customers about the defendants were false (Proofpoint Inc. v. Vade Secure Inc., No. 19-4238, N.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213980).
CAMDEN, N.J. — A federal judge in New Jersey on Nov. 16 granted approval of a $450,000 cash settlement in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit brought against a former employee of a mail services company who was alleged to have misappropriated the company’s trade secrets to steal business with the Church of Scientology (COS) from his former employer for his own financial benefit (Asendia USA Inc. v. Eugene J. Donohue, et al., No. 20-2490, D. N.J.).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on Nov. 12 ruled that a defendant in a breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation lawsuit is not entitled to attorney fees based on a provision in a confidentiality and nonsolicitation agreement he signed with his former employer because the lawsuit was dismissed prior to a determination on the merits of his former employer’s contract breach claim (K’oyitl’ots’ina Ltd. v. Robert Gottschalk, No. 10-11309, S.D. N.Y., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212118).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A federal judge in California on Nov. 10 ruled that defendants in a criminal action charged with stealing their former employer’s trade secrets and misappropriating them to form a competing company are entitled to an evidentiary hearing under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Franks v. Delaware on the issue of whether the omission of a denied temporary restraining order application in a related civil action “would eliminate a fair probability for finding probable cause” (United States v. Liang Chen, No. 17-cr-603, N.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210476).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Nov. 6 ruled that a manufacturer of industrial air-handling systems has sufficiently pleaded that its customer data is a trade secret and that the company took reasonable measures to protect the secrecy of the information in pleading that a former employee and an industry competitor misappropriated the proprietary information in violation of federal securities law (Air Dynamics Industrial Systems Inc. v. D. Aaron Lehman, et al., No. 19-2073, M.D. Pa., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207899).