9 results for 'cat:"Patent" AND cat:"Trade Secrets"'.
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. Snyder grants L'Oreal's motion for terminating sanctions in a patent dispute over a hair-coloring dispensing system. The court found that the accused products did not infringe upon the patent, and that the patent holder did not allege a trade secret and that the information in the patent could not be protected as a trade secret. L'Oreal asserts that documents presented in the first amended complaint were inauthentic. A forensic expert determined that some documents had been edited after litigation began. Evidence shows that the patent holder "acted willfully, in bad faith, and with fault by repeatedly fabricating, destroying, and withholding important evidence."
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Snyder, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 2:18cv364, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Sanctions, trade Secrets
J. Gorton denies an artificial intelligence company and two former employees of an actuarial and consulting firm’s motion to file an amended answer and counterclaims after the actuarial and consulting firm sued them for misappropriation of trade secrets and patent infringement. The deadline for amendments is not going to be extended based on information found during discovery because the AI company and the former employees deferred discovery.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Gorton, Filed On: December 22, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv10865, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, trade Secrets, Discovery
J. Robart partially grants the aircraft manufacturer's motion to seal an exhibit from its complaint that Boeing infringed on its hybrid-electric and electric aircraft technology. The exhibit contains Boeing's first set of interrogatories seeking a description of the aircraft manufacturer's trade secrets, and the aircraft manufacturer is right to be concerned that unauthorized persons could have access to its proprietary technology and business strategies, including those detailing its software platform, powertrain system, propulsion system and market analytics.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Robart, Filed On: November 1, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv896, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, 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. Frank rules in favor of the manufacturer in a trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract action brought by the company alleging that the manufacturer used the company's proprietary designs and information to develop and design two cell-culture products. The evidence at trial showed that the manufacturer's inventors designed and developed the products independently, without using any of the company's confidential information. The design of the manufacturer's products is fundamentally different from the company's concepts. The company's state law claims are untimely and its eight-year delay in bringing the action against the manufacturer was unreasonable. The delay caused a loss of documentary evidence, including emails, documents and recordings, that prejudiced the manufacturer.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: September 25, 2023, Case #: 0:13cv210, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, trade Secrets, Contract
J. Sargus denies the decorative metal products company's motion to dismiss, ruling the contract claim related to the technology company's confidential information is plausible. The nondisclosure agreement between the parties did not allow for public disclosure of the metal stamping technology, such as that included in the metal company's patent application, but allowed only for transfer of such information between the two parties.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Sargus, Filed On: September 15, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv3433, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: patent, trade Secrets, Contract