Parexel, a Parexel affiliate, and Barnett International (collectively "Parexel") sued Feliciano and Innovative Media Machine, Inc. (the latter referred to as "IMM") for misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims. The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.

Feliciano is a former Barnett employee; Barrett became a division of Parexel. Feliciano claims that Barnett wrongfully obtained the membership records of various private organizations and authorized the incorporation of these records into a Parexel marketing database. Feliciano allegedly complained about this to various Barnett employees and an investigation was launched. According to Feliciano, his employment was later terminated as a result. Parexel claims that Feliciano was terminated because he had an undisclosed ownership interest in an outside company in violation of the terms of his employment agreement. The company in question, IMM, provided services to Parexel during the course of Feliciano's employment. At some point, an email was sent to numerous Parexel employees, vendors, and customers that allegedly contained false statements about Parexel. Parexel insists that Feliciano was the author of the email and that many of the recipients were derived from its confidential customer lists. While Feliciano denied having sent the email, he did admit to authoring a similar letter that he sent to a few Parexel employees.

Regarding the trade secrets claim, Parexel claimed that Feliciano improperly acquired or retained custody of its confidential proprietary information, including its customer lists, without Parexel's consent and in violation of Feliciano's employment agreement. Parexel further alleged that Feliciano disclosed its confidential information to IMM for his own benefit and to the detriment of Parexel. Parexel contended that sufficient evidence existed to show that Feliciano possessed Parexel's proprietary information and that he used the information for the purpose of advancing a rival business interest. Parexel pointed to similarities in the websites of Feliciano's two companies and Parexel's own website. In addition, Parexel pointed to a letter authored by Feliciano, indicating that he had obtained the records of millions of pharmaceutical companies and that he intended to inform those companies of Parexel's alleged impropriety. Although defendants argued that Parexel had misinterpreted Feliciano's words in the letter, the court held that fact issues existed as to whether Feliciano improperly obtained business information from Parexel in furtherance of his own interests. However, there had been no showing that the business information at issue constituted a trade secret. While such issue was typically decided by a jury, Parexel had entirely failed to raise a fact issue on this point.