188 results for 'nos:"Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights"'.
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
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. 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
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. 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. Calabretta grants, in part, R.R. Donnelly and Sons’ motion for contempt against a former employee who deleted certain files and failed to produce his Dropbox account in violation of a preliminary injunction. The worker violation of the order was not done in good faith or through a reasonable understanding of the order.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Calabretta, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv753, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Contempt, Sanctions, Injunction
J. Horan finds that suing energy services firm is not entitled to spoilation of evidence sanctions against the sued energy services company, whose employees destroyed information on their personal cellular phones after the suing firm requested this information for its relevance to the underlying case. The information involved text messages between the two businesses’ employees, and the parties should be able to retrieve the information from its own employees so there is no evidence that the information is no longer accessible.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Horan, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv1981, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Evidence, Sanctions
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