The Trade Secrets Vault

A blog of trade secrets news, verdicts, and resources
 

The last time we checked on the Beckett v. COMC case, Beckett had requested permission to file an amended complaint to add a breach of contract claim against COMC. COMC opposed Beckett's request, which I theorized was a COMC strategy to re-argue its side of the case to the court, rather than an actual attempt to stop Beckett's motion.

As predicted, the court rejected COMC's opposition and allowed Beckett to amend its complaint.

In a minor backfire for Beckett, once it filed its amended complaint, COMC responded by adding a new claim of its own.

In its response, COMC asked the court to issue an order "that the Beckett Media data is simply an ordinary compilation of readily accessible materials that is not entitled to trade secret protection."

Legal translation: Judge, can you tell the world that everything Beckett has is freely available for everybody in the world to copy?

Law of Cards: COMC Alleges Beckett Has No Trade Secrets
By Paul Lesko


Read more: http://www.cardboardconnection.com/news/law-cards-comc-alleges-beckett-trade-secrets#ixzz3EmVDRgPS 2014 Cardboard Connection Inc

Can Your LinkedIn List Be a Trade Secret?

As a LinkedIn user, the decision concerning whether to share your entire list of connections with any individual connection can often implicate a number of strategic questions. As of May 2014, LinkedIn boasts 300 million users globally and access, or lack thereof, to such a vast network can depend to some degree on how an account is configured insofar as that configuration determines how information is shared amongst a user’s connection. The business implications are apparent, but such a decision has started to engender legal actions, as encapsulated by Cellular Accessories for Less, Inc. v. Trinitas, LLC, No. CV 12-06736 DDP (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2014).

Plaintiff Cellular Accessories for Less, Inc. (Cellular) and Defendant Trinitas LLC (Trinitas) are both in the business of selling mobile phone accessories to businesses. Defendant David Oakes (Oakes) worked for Cellular as a sales manager from 2004 to 2010. In order to receive approbation to start, Oakes was required to sign an Employment Agreement (the Agreement) which included a clause that stated in relevant part that Cellular requested that the “proprietary information remain property of this organization, and may not leave, either physically or electronically, unless approved in writing” by the CEO of Cellular. Oakes similarly signed a “Statement of Confidentiality” (the Statement) in which he avowed to not “knowingly, disclose, use, or induce or assist in the use or disclosure” of the Cellular proprietary information or anything related thereto, without the express written consent of Cellular.

Proprietary information was defined in the Statement as “information (a) that is not known by actual or potential competitors of the Company or is generally unavailable to the public, (b) that has been created, discovered, developed, or which has otherwise become known to the Company … and (c) that has material economic value or potential material economic value to the Company’s present or future business.” Oakes signed the agreement, but disputed such signature created a valid contract.

By JD Supra. Click here to read the complete article.

In June Pro Publica reported that the Red Cross was resisting our request that the New York attorney general's office release information provided by the group on how it spent money after Superstorm Sandy, arguing that documents we sought contained "trade secrets."

The charity has now reversed itself, concluding that "with all of the disasters the American Red Cross responds to and the peak of hurricane season fast approaching, it simply isn't worth our time and resources to continue these efforts over a year-old letter," Red Cross spokeswoman Anne Marie Borrego said.

The Red Cross provided ProPublica with a copy of a July 2013 letter that offers a bit more insight into how it used the more than $300 million it raised for storm relief, but stops short of detailing how it allocated resources geographically or the pace at which money was spent.

In the weeks and months after the storm, the Red Cross faced criticism that it hadn't provided aid quickly enough where it was most needed.

In an additional note provided with the letter, the Red Cross said that as of June 30, 2014, it had spent $239 million on post-Sandy relief and made "firm commitments" to spend almost all of the rest of the $312 million raised. It also broke its expenditures into seven categories, a level of detail not given in its annual reports or tax filings.

More than half the money spent, $129.6 million, went to financial assistance, food, and other relief items, the Red Cross said. The next-largest expenditures were $46.1 million for "deployment of staff and volunteers (e.g. air travel, rental vehicles, meals, lodging for volunteers)" and $30 million for "costs of permanent program resources included in Superstorm Sandy response."

The group said it spent smaller amounts to pay temporary disaster workers, to acquire or rent equipment, and on miscellaneous operational costs. Nearly $5 million went to professional and consulting services for events like telethons and direct mail fundraising.

To read the complete article by Justin Elliot from Pro Publica, please click here.

A U.S. steel company on Monday filed a petition with the U.S. International Trade Commission, seeking to block imports of some stainless steel products from India, Germany and Taiwan, claiming competitors are using stolen trade secrets.

Valbruna Slater Stainless and Valbruna Stainless of Fort Wayne, Indiana, which manufacture stainless steel forging billets, round cornered square billets and stainless steel bars, and their Italian parent Acciaierie Valbruna said the petition aimed to protect their intellectual property rights.

The foreign companies named in the complaint are India's Viraj Profiles Limited, German affiliate Flanschenwerk Bebitz GmbH and Taiwan's Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co, along with associated companies.

"The proposed respondents' unfair acts have substantially injured Valbruna by undercutting the market for Valbruna steel and taking away Valbruna's customers," the petition said.

"Valbruna seeks a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order to stop the proposed respondents from continuing to profit from the misappropriation of Valbruna's trade secrets and injuring Valbruna."

From Reuters

Industry experts and academics advised on the legislation, which is pending in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate and known as the Trade Secrets Protection Act of 2014 and the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014, respectively. The bills, which have bipartisan sponsors, would allow companies to bring civil suits in federal court when their trade secrets have been misappropriated.

Companies currently bring state law trade secret misappropriation claims in state court and in federal court if they can satisfy the federal diversity statute or the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute.

“The challenge is quick enforcement across state lines,” said Mark Schultz, senior scholar and co-director of the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property at George Mason University School of Law, who spoke in support of the bills at the briefing session.

With different statutes in each state, the law has not kept up with technology, Schultz said in an interview. “The bottom line is to be able to stop a leak faster,” Schultz said.

Those who oppose, have objections on the provision of quick injunctive relief, which could inadvertently result in greater disclosure of trade secrets. The federal laws also would have a negative impact on business collaboration and worker mobility, according to the open letter.

To read this story from Bloomberg, please click here.

Trade Secret Tips From Recent Caselaw

Dana Finberg, The Recorder

Imagine your client calls you one day and tells you they have developed a great new idea for a software product and, because you are their trusted advisor, they want your help in devising a legal strategy for protecting this valuable intellectual property.
As you listen to them describe this great new idea, because you are a diligent IP practitioner and familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court's June 19 decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __ (2014), it begins to sound suspiciously like what they have come up with is an "abstract" idea—an idea constituting a category of patent ineligible subject matter, including algorithms, mathematical concepts, chemical elements, naturally occurring biological products and methods that can be carried out in a person's head.

Since it appears your client cannot obtain a patent for their bright new idea for a software product, do they have any options for attempting to protect the fruits of their hard work?

Fortunately for your client, you have also been keeping up with recent developments in trade secrets law. In a decision filed in May, the California Court of Appeals held that ideas, if kept secret, can constitute information protectable by trade secret law. By so holding, the court in Altavion Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory Inc. went a long way in clearing up confusion created by a 2010 decision, Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp., which stated that "[t]rade secret law does not protect ideas as such" and trade secret protection only extends to information tending to communicate or disclose ideas to another.

Keep it secret, keep it safe
In Altavion, the dispute arose when the defendant took the plaintiff's overall concept and specific design implementations for digital stamping technology—which it had received under a non-disclosure agreement executed in the course of business negotiations between the parties—and covertly incorporated them into patent applications in its own name. The trial court found for Altavion on its claims of trade secret misappropriation, and on appeal Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory (KMSL) argued that, under Silvaco, Altavion's concept was not protectable because "[g]eneralized ideas and inventions are protectable by patents and thus cannot be trade secrets."

The California Court of Appeals rejected this argument, relying on earlier precedent explaining the overlap between trade secret law and patent law, explaining that "a trade secret in the broad sense consists of any unpatented idea which may be used for industrial and commercial purposes." The court unambiguously declared "it is clear that if a patentable idea is kept secret, the idea itself can constitute information protectable by trade secret law" and "trade secret law may be used to sanction the misappropriation of the idea the plaintiff kept secret."

The trade secret ideas at issue in Altavion were ultimately embodied in at least eight patents obtained by the defendant, so the information constituted patentable subject matter, at least before the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. However, the Court of Appeal's detailed explanation of the interrelationship of patent and trade secret law made clear trade secret law extends to inventions which, for whatever reason, may not be patent-eligible.

As the court explained, "[P]atentability is not a condition precedent to the classification of a trade secret. Thus it has been said that a trade secret may be a device or process which is clearly anticipated in the prior art or one which is merely a mechanical improvement on a machine or device. Novelty and invention are not requisite for a trade secret as they are for patentability."

As long as a company's ideas and information meet the general requirements for trade secret status under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, then trade secrets law will provide protection and powerful remedies for misappropriation. Those requirements include that the ideas and information are not generally known; derive independent economic value from their secrecy; and are the subject of reasonable efforts under the circumstances to protect their secrecy.

To read the complete article published in The Recorder, click here.

Cargill, in a lawsuit filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court in Denver, accused Jason Kuan of downloading hundreds of confidential and proprietary files detailing the agricultural conglomerate's meat-processing operations.

The lawsuit highlights the intense competition among the world's biggest meat-processing firms, which invest in technology and methods to produce meat as cheaply as possible and win business from fast-food chains, grocery stores and food service operations.

Cargill said Mr. Kuan had worked for the company for 20 years. Much of Mr. Kuan's tenure there involved managing the company's U.S. and Canadian "case-ready" meat businesses—meat that is processed and packaged at a plant and delivered to the meat departments of food retailers, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Kuan, who Cargill said joined JBS this month, was appointed to lead a similar business under development at JBS's U.S. division based in Greeley, Colo., Cargill alleged, citing an announcement that JBS had circulated.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Kuan's abrupt departure prompted Cargill to carry out a forensic analysis on his Cargill-issued laptop, which showed that in early July he downloaded "hundreds of highly confidential and proprietary" files related to Cargill's prepackaged meat business, which he stored on an external hard drive.

To read the complete article from the WSJ, please click here.

A 49-year-old Kentucky man was sentenced Thursday by a federal judge in Yakima to three months in prison for selling trade secrets involving drone aircraft.

Stephen Martin Ward of Owensboro, Ky., was arrested in November 2011 in Indiana after giving a digital copy of an unmanned aircraft maintenance manual to an undercover agent for $10,000, according to a news release issued by Michael C. Ormsby, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington in Spokane.

Ormsby said Ward was hired as a technical writer in August 2011 to create a maintenance manual for a drone, known as the RQ-21A Blackjack, which was developed by Insitu Inc.

The company, located in Bingen and owned by Boeing, employs about 800 people who develop unmanned aircraft systems.

When Ward’s employment was terminated about two months later, he told a former supervisor that he’d taken substantial amounts of data while working at the company, Ormsby said.

To read the complete article, please click here.

DETROIT, MI - The FBI has seized listening instruments, computers and financial records from an engineer at Ford Motor Co.'s headquarters in Dearborn, the Detroit News Reports.

The News says that the mechanical engineer was being investigated for allegedly stealing trade secrets of the automaker.

A lawyer for the engineer, who has not been charged with a crime, said that his client said she was using recording devices to transcribe meetings. She was not engaged in any kind of corporate espionage, he said. The engineer's home was also searched a few weeks ago, according to the News.

Read the full story here.

By Paul Elias

A Federal judge sentenced a Walnut Creek chemical engineer to 15 years in prison and fined him $28 million after his rare economic-espionage conviction for selling China the technology that creates a white pigment.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White in Oakland said Walter Liew had "turned against his adopted country over greed."

A jury previously convicted the 56-year-old Liew of receiving $28 million from companies controlled by the Chinese government in exchange for DuPont Co.'s secret recipe for making cars, paper and a long list of everyday items whiter.

White noted that U.S. authorities had managed to trace $22 million of that money to various Singapore and Chinese companies controlled by Liew's in-laws before losing the trail.

"We'll never get it," White said. "It has been spirited out of the country."

Liew and his wife, Christina Liew, launched a small California company in the 1990s aimed at exploiting China's desire to build a DuPont-like factory to manufacture the white pigment known as titanium dioxide. The Liews hired retired DuPont engineers and, according to the FBI, paid them thousands of dollars for sensitive company documents laying out a process to make the pigment.

To continue reading this great story from San Jose Mercury News, please click here.

Mo Yun, wife of billionaire DBN Chairman Shao Genhou wants the U.S. government to release her on bond to travel to China while she awaits trial on charges she conspired to steal American seed corn trade secrets. Attorneys for Mo Yun say the case against her is "exceedingly thin" and that she's not a flight risk.

Mo was arrested July 1 at Los Angeles International Airport. Documents say she was in the U.S. with her 12-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter on a vacation to Disneyland. Her children had to fly back to China alone.

Prosecutors allege she helped employees of her husband's company, DBN Group, steal seed corn from Iowa and Illinois.

To read more about this story, please click here.

The Eighth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals has upheld a $31.3 million verdict in favor of Hallmark Cards Inc.

Hallmark had hired Boston-based consulting firm Monitor Co. Group LP in 2001 to research consumer behavior in the greeting cards market. Monitor was closely affiliated with private equity firm Monitor Clipper Partners LLC, but agreed to sign a confidentiality agreement.

When Clipper became interested in purchasing Recycled Paper Greetings Inc., a greeting cards manufacturer, it asked Monitor to share the market information it had compiled for Hallmark. Monitor agreed and provided the information, which Clipper then used to price its bid for RPG and obtain financing.

Hallmark became suspicious after Clipper announced its purchase and asked both companies to institute litigation holds on all materials related to the purchase. Instead, Monitor and Clipper began destroying evidence and erasing hard drives, Judge Roger Wollman wrote in the court's decision.

To continue reading this interesting article from the Kansas City Business Journal, please click here.

In the latest legal battles raging across Silicon Valley and the tech world, ZeniMax Media is taking Oculus VR to court. The lawsuit deals with trade secrets being exchanged and instrumental to the Oculus Rift VR headset becoming a reality while game programmer John Carmack is blamed for acting as the middleman.

The issue is whether ZeniMax had some sort of contribution to Oculus technology without getting credit for it. However, the bigger issue has to do with Carmack being blamed for making Oculus the way it is using knowledge or patents he worked with while he was still a ZeniMax employee.

Carmack was hired by Oculus in August of 2013 and worked with Oculus founder Palmer Luckey. Previous to this time, he was still employed by ID Software and later ZeniMax, which acquired ID Software in 2009, a company he co-founded that was responsible for games like the Quake and Doom series.

In order to finish reading this article from TechTimes, please click here

Mr. Ketankumar Maniar worked as an engineer at C.R. Bard, from 2004 to 2011, and at Becton, Dickinson and Co., from 2012 to 2013.

While working for the medical technology companies, Maniar downloaded files with product information onto computer storage devices, including external hard drives and thumb drives, court documents said. He also used his work email accounts to forward trade secrets to his personal accounts.

FBI agents seized at least one hard drive containing Bard and Becton trade secrets in a June 20, 2013 search of a New Jersey hotel room where Maniar stayed while planning a move back to India.

To finish reading this article, please click here.

Members of China’s People’s Liberation Army hacked into the systems of Westinghouse Electric, Alcoa and other corporations, U.S. officials allege. U.S. officials also linked the loss of jobs with China's aggressive practice.

"All around the country there has been a real and demonstrable loss of jobs in our communities," said David Hickton, the chief federal prosecutor in Pittsburgh, where the indictments were brought.

He cited plants that had been shut or hit with large layoffs as a result of espionage that allowed Chinese competitors to flood the U.S. market with below-cost products, including steel pipe.
Hickton joined Attorney General Eric Holder and other Justice officials at a Washington press conference where they disclosed the names of the five Chinese while claiming the intent to haul them into a U.S. court of law.

To read the complete news article from NY Daily News, please click here.

Defend Trade Secrets Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch, current member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Chris Coons, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation to help combat the loss of an estimated $160 billion to $480 billion each year in the United States to the theft of corporate trade secrets.

Ideally, the Defend Trade Secrets Act would empower companies to protect their trade secrets in federal court by creating a federal private right-of-action.

Sen. Hatch said: Current federal criminal law is insufficient. Although the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 made trade secret theft a crime, the Department of Justice brought only 25 trade secret theft cases last year. State-level civil trade secret laws alone have not been sufficient to stop interstate theft. Federal courts are better suited to working across state and national boundaries to facilitate discovery, serve defendants or witnesses, or prevent a party from leaving the country. Laws also vary state-to-state, making it difficult for U.S. companies to craft consistent policies.

To read the proposed bill, please proposed Defend-Trade-Secrets-Act-.pdf.

The company that got the multimillion-dollar contract to run the call centers for the health care exchange Access Health CT -- called Maximus -- is refusing to release invoices and contracts to show exactly how much they are paid by the state.

WNPR filed a freedom of information request for the information, but Maximus said the invoices and contracts could reveal trade secrets. Maximus values its contract with Connecticut at $15 million over three years, and that's all the company would say.

Last year, WNPR reporter Jeff Cohen asked for the contract between Maximus and the state, as well as invoices, to find out what the state paid for and how much it paid. What he got was heavily redacted information. Cohen filed a complaint, and then went to a formal hearing before Connecticut's Freedom of Information Commission. WNPR argued that the documents are public.

An attorney for Maximus said, "If... one of our competitors learns of how we priced, for example: what is our staff makeup, what is tech we are using ,what is the start-up cost... then they have an advantage that they have not earned."

To read the complete article by CT's WNPR, please click here.