331 results for 'cat:"Trade Secrets"'.
J. Horan finds that a plaintiff home loan company that claims a defendant financial company misappropriated the plaintiff company’s trade secrets does not need to provide further specific information about the trade secrets to supplement several of defendant’s interrogatories. The plaintiff company responded to the questions as asked and is not required to provide information beyond the language of the original interrogatories. Defendant's request for an order compelling plaintiff to provide further information is denied.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Horan, Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv2298, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: trade Secrets, Discovery
J. Ellis partially grants the sued trading platform’s motion to dismiss the suing financial technology company’s allegations of trade secrets misappropriation. The fintech firm accuses the trading platform of violating a prior contract to market the plaintiff’s trading software, specifically a clause prohibiting reverse-engineering the software. The court finds the fintech firm has sufficiently stated claims under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act and federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, but that these same claims preempt allegations of tortious interference with economic advantage, unfair competition, fraud and unjust enrichment.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Ellis, Filed On: May 2, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv14192, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Fraud, trade Secrets, Tort
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Grant finds that the district court improperly dismissed the company's breach of contract and trade secrets action against the ex-employee and the competitor arising after they allegedly stole trade secrets about the company's government contract to improve the competitor's bid for the same contract. The company and the competitor are both tribally-owned businesses. Since the competitor's alleged misconduct is related to its participation in the business development program, the company's trade secrets claims fall under the scope of the competitor's sovereign immunity waiver. The district court incorrectly failed to consider the enforceability of the forum selection clause naming an allegedly nonexistent tribal court as the proper forum before dismissing the breach of contract claim against the ex-employee. Reversed.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Grant, Filed On: May 1, 2024, Case #: 22-12669, Categories: trade Secrets, Contract
J. Horan finds that the testimony of an expert witness for the defendant energy services company, who testified as to whether suing energy company took reasonable steps to protect its trade secrets, shall not be removed from the record. The witness’s testimony does not invade the territory of the trier of fact, but rather provides information as to the steps that the sued company could have or did take to protect its trade secrets. Plaintiff’s motion to strike the expert witness’s testimony is denied.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Horan, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv1981, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: trade Secrets, Experts
J. Robart denies Boeing summary judgment for the trade secrets misappropriation claim in the aircraft manufacturer's complaint alleging that Boeing infringed on the manufacturer's hybrid-electric and electric aircraft technology. Boeing argues that the manufacturer does not present expert testimony to back its claim, but the substance of the expert's report establishes a genuine dispute as to whether the alleged trade secrets were readily ascertainable.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Robart, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv896, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Patent, trade Secrets, Experts
J. Talwani grants in part a former company president’s motion for judgment as a matter of law against his former company, which successfully sued him for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, trademark infringement and false designation. There wasn’t enough substantial evidence before the jury to determine that the former president improperly obtained meeting minutes from the company.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Talwani, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv10926, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trade Secrets, Trademark, Fiduciary Duty
J. Frimpong denies in part a former senior vice president's motion for judgment as a matter of law and grants in part his motion for a new trial regarding his former employer's, a human tissue product seller's, allegations that he misappropriated trade secrets, breached relevant contracts and interfered with the company's prospective economic advantage. The jury properly found that the former employer's manufacturing process was confidential, and that the former employee used or disclosed this information. The breach of duty claims are not preempted by trade secret law. The damages are supported by the evidence. There were no legal errors that would justify granting a new trial. However, there was insufficient evidence of the former employee's ability to pay a punitive damages award. The parties are ordered to further brief the issue of an appropriate punitive damages award.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Frimpong, Filed On: April 17, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv3444, NOS: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) - Other Suits, Categories: trade Secrets, Contract, Racketeering
J. Jackson grants a request by a Texas-based electrical contractor, finding its Louisiana competitor in civil contempt of a nearly two-year-old court order barring its use of allegedly stolen trade secrets obtained from the litigant’s former employees. The competitor claims it was “blindsided” by its employee’s deposition testimony that he used tools and programs from his ex-employers to build materials for his new bosses. The competitor “may not rely on its supposed ignorance” of its employees' activities to avoid a finding of contempt. The competitor must immediately cease using all replicas of the litigant-contractor's protected information.
Court: USDC Middle District of Louisiana, Judge: Jackson, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv267, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Employment, Sanctions, trade Secrets
J. Nalbandian vacates the lower court's injunction against an insurance firm's former employee, finding the court failed to conduct the four-step analysis required under the Ohio Supreme Court's 1975 ruling in Raimonde v. Van Vlerah when it determined whether the insurance firm's non-solicitation agreement was enforceable. Although the client information taken by the employee was properly deemed a trade secret, the injunction's reliance on references to the non-solicitation agreement renders it defective.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 23-3638, Categories: trade Secrets, Contract, Injunction
J. Guzman finds that a company guilty of misappropriation of trade secrets committed misappropriation willfully and maliciously, but does not award exemplary damages even though they would be warranted. Punitive damages have already been awarded, so exemplary damages run the risk of being unfairly duplicative.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Guzman, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 4:21cv10572, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: trade Secrets, Damages, Business Practices
J. Ellison finds that a case brought by a distributor of telecommunications products in which a manufacturer terminated an exclusive contract and directed the distributor’s customers to buy directly from the manufacturer can proceed to review an amended complaint from the distributor. The court awaits relevant information to be presented in the amended complaint that will determine if the distributor’s client list constitutes trade secrets.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Ellison, Filed On: April 8, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv48, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: trade Secrets, Contract