By: Stephen Gurr

Saying he believed a Gainesville tax preparation company willfully misappropriated trade secrets of H&R Block and ignored a court order not to use them, a judge fined Paramount Tax Services more than $12,000 Tuesday for contempt of court.

Paramount Tax Services owner Chris Hardy is expected to appeal the fine, but Judge David Burroughs told him he still expected the money to be paid to H&R Block by Friday.

To continue reading this article from gainesvilletimes.com, click here.

By ANJALI ATHAVALEY

A few manufacturers of household cleaning products have begun disclosing the chemicals in some of their products. S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. last month rolled out Web site WhatsInsideSCJohnson.com to describe most of the ingredients for its Windex, Glade, and Shout brands. Clorox Co. lists ingredients for its Formula 409 and other products at TheCloroxCompany.com.

These efforts are receiving a boost from industry trade groups that recently set up joint guidelines to encourage use of a standardized format for presenting the technical information. "Consumers want to know more to ensure the safety of their family," says a Procter & Gamble spokesman. "The industry is changing along with that."

To continue reading this interesting article from The Wall Street Journal, click here.

By: Arthur Gollwitzer III

On March 23, 2009, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ("The Court") issued proposed local rules for handling patent cases, continuing a trend that began in the Northern District of California in 2001.

The Northern District of Illinois proposed rules contemplate trial of patent infringement cases within two years of filing. Likewise, the proposed rules contemplate exchanging final infringement and invalidity contentions 32 and 36 weeks after filing, respectively; completing claim construction briefing within 48 weeks; and summary judgment motions being due no later than 81 weeks after filing.

To continue reading this article from WTN News click here.

By: Bill Frogameni
South Florida Business Journal

Reed Elsevier, the Massachusetts-based parent of LexisNexis and Seisint, on Thursday filed a complaint in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, alleging that Asher is violating his non-compete agreement by starting a new company, TLFO, in Boca Raton.

In 2004, Asher sold Seisint, his second major database company, to LexisNexis for several hundred million dollars. The deal included a non-compete agreement that is in effect until August.

But, Faith Gay, an attorney for Reed Elsevier, said Asher started violating his five-year non-compete agreement "approximately" two years early. While Asher has said publicly that TLFO is doing only charitable work to help in the hunt for child predators until his non-compete expires, the suit alleges that Asher is already angling for market share.

By: Marcus Padley

I ONCE went out with the richest man in England. Not in the biblical sense of course, and after a few bottles of something expensive he expounded his somewhat brutal assessment of life and business. I took notes. Here is the potted version. Do not try this at home.

* Think beyond the square. Set an unachievable goal. Shoot for the stars and hit the moon. Pictures of Porsches on the fridge. All that sort of stuff.

* Starting with nothing is good. Who is the better competitor - someone fat and comfortable, or someone lean and hungry, someone driven, focused, bold and prepared to take risks?

To read the totality of this interesting article from W.A. Today, please click here.

Nagarro, Inc., a Silicon Valley outsourced software developer whose back office in Gurgaon, India employs over 400 employees, has been sued in federal court by two U.S.-based companies for theft of trade secrets, breach of confidentiality, unfair business practices and unlawful interference with another company's contract.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Nagarro contracted with Sigma Six Technologies to provide software development services. Nagarro allegedly began performing the work in India but soon circumvented Sigma Six Technologies to deal directly with T-Systems Enterprise Services GmbH, which had ordered the software, popularly known as ServiceNet, from another U.S. company, Sigma Six Technologies' exclusive licensee.

To read the complete article from PR Newswire, click here.

By: Patrick E. Premo and Julie Nokleberg

The California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District recently issued an important decision confirming the preemptive effect of California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("CUTSA") on common law claims. In K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc., 09 C.D.O.S. 2624 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2009), the Court of Appeal unanimously held that the CUTSA preempted plaintiff's state law claims for breach of confidence, interference with contract and unfair competition because they were "based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of trade secrets claim."

The California Appellate Court adopted the approach followed in prior federal decisions applying California law. By giving a broader and more preclusive effect to CUTSA Section 3426.7, this decision should help narrow the focus of pending and future trade secret litigations.

To read the complete article from mondaq.com, click here.

BY WILL BROWN
DEMOCRAT STAFF WRITER

The fight for commercial consumers in North Florida has left Waste Pro of Florida and Emerald Waste in a stinky situation.

Two of the biggest garbage collectors in North Florida are in court to settle what Emerald considers a violation of the state's Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The law prohibits acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means.

In order to continue reading this interesting article from Tallahassee.com, click here.

R. Mark Halligan
Partner
Nixon Peabody LLP
161 N. Clark Street, 48th Floor
Chicago, Ill 60601

reports that his Trade Secrets Case Law Database has now been updated with some 100 new cases - now with 964 trade secret case summaries in the database.

Congratulations!!

The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs, awarding Davis $4,043,686.71.

In early 2004, plaintiff Richard C. Davis and his real estate investment company Trademark Properties Inc. produced a treatment and demo of a reality show about purchasing, renovating and flipping homes. According to Davis, he submitted it to A&E Television Networks, which asked to meet to discuss the production of a series from it.
Davis alleged that on June 14, 2004, he had met with an A&E representative and told him he would consider an agreement to work together only if he and his company could be an equal partner, owning half the project and getting half its net revenue.
Among the provisions of the agreement they hammered out, said Davis, were that A&E pay all production costs, while Trademark find, refurbish and sell all real estate featured in the show. Trademark and its principals would star and Davis would be credited as a creator in every episode.
According to Davis, after A&E explicitly agreed to those terms, he and Trademark let it shoot 13 episodes of the resulting show, "Flip This House," based on the deal. A&E kept promising to prepare and sign a written contract to confirm the partnership terms they had discussed, but the contract never was provided, Davis claimed.
According to Davis, he discovered that A&E was repudiating their agreement in or about March 2006, when they were informed that A&E was planning to make a second season of the show, "Flip This House," without their participation. A&E went on to produce several subsequent seasons without Davis.
Davis sued for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition, among their other claims. They said A&E had absconded with his project with plans to produce and broadcast another season of the show without any help from or compensation to him.
Davis claimed that if he had known that he was going to be defrauded and the agreement not honored, he would never have agreed to let A&E shoot 13 episodes. He also would never have disclosed certain confidential proprietary business information and trade secrets.
A&E maintained that it had made it clear to Davis that it had final creative authority over the show, owned all legal rights in it and controlled and would keep all revenues from it. Davis had sought no direct compensation for his participation in the show because he considered it a free platform for advertising and expanding his company nationwide, the defense claimed. It said A&E had never promised Davis any revenues for his participation in the first season of the show.
Davis had agreed to appear in a second season of the show as on-air talent for per-episode cash compensation without any profit share, A&E said, and he had confirmed his participation by email and phone and through his lawyer. But then he suddenly walked away from the agreement and announced he would go to a competing network. He had even signed a representation to that network acknowledging that A&E had no financial obligation to him, it said.
Before trial the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims except for breach of contract and fraud. Departure Films was dismissed on consent and A&E voluntarily dismissed its counterclaims. The court then dismissed the fraud claim at the close of the evidence, leaving only breach of contract to proceed
to the jury.

Wilson (bankruptcy trustee for the estate of Indigo Moon Productions, LLC) sued Hasbro and Atari Interactive, Inc. for misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims. The court granted defendants' summary judgment motion.

In 2000, Indigo and Hasbro Interactive, Inc. ("HII"), a former Hasbro division, entered into a agreement setting forth the terms pursuant to which the companies were to explore the possibility of working on the development of interactive games based on the board game "Clue." The agreement provided that the material discussed and developed would remain confidential. Later than same year, HII asked Indigo to develop an expansion for the game that would work on PlayStation 2 systems and personal computers. Indigo then submitted a design proposal to HII. Thereafter, HII was acquired by Infogames and later became known as Atari Interactive. In 2001, Atari told Indigo that it no longer wished to work with Indigo on the Clue project. A few months later, Indigo filed for bankruptcy; Indigo listed game projects as part of its assets. In 2003, Hasbro released a new board game entitled "Clue FX." Indigo claims that this game incorporates aspects of the concepts set forth in its design proposal.

Defendants asserted that there was no evidence that Hasbro used Indigo's design proposal in the creation of Clue FX. Hasbro employees connected to the creation of the game denied any knowledge of the existence of the proposal before the commencement of this litigation. There was evidence that the development of Clue FX was based on the creation of conductive ink technology. Wilson argued that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Hasbro had access to the design proposal. The design proposal was not created until November 2000 and by that time, HII did not share an office with Hasbro. At that time, HII was in the process of being sold. Further, given the limited nature of the evidence concerning the business contacts of Atari and Hasbro, it was too speculative to infer that Hasbro had access to the proposal. In addition, Wilson failed to show sufficient similarity between the innovative aspects of Indigo's design proposal and Clue FX to provide enough of a circumstantial inference to create a fact issue. The alleged key similarities were that both the design proposal and Clue FX had the players controlling the movements of a detective, while a computer independently controlled the movements of the suspects. But there was evidence showing that this concept was considered by Hasbro in 1999. The other similarities were too tenuous to support an inference of use. When the actual proposal was compared to the game mechanics, most of the alleged similarities were only superficial.

Brescia sued Angelin and others for misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims. The trial court entered judgment of dismissal after sustaining respondents' demurrer to Brescia's third amended cross-complaint; the appellate court reversed.

After a dispute at a trade show where Brescia accused Angelin and his company of stealing his ideas, Angelin sued Brescia for trade libel. In response, Brescia filed a cross-complaint for misappropriation of trade secrets. Brescia developed a pudding product with the assistance of a food scientist, Scinto. The high protein, low carbohydrate qualities of the pudding were unique. Brescia contracted with two companies, Performance Worldwide USA, Inc. ("PW") and Instone, LLC, for the sale and distribution of his pudding, subject to confidentiality and nondisclosure provisions. At the time, Angelin worked for PW, but later left to form his own company, Freedom Foods, Inc. Freedom and Instone began producing and selling a pudding allegedly based on Brescia's formula and business plan. Brescia added Sylvester Stallone, Instone's Chairman, and Arnold, Instone's CEO, as individual cross-defendants. Only Stallone and Arnold are parties to this appeal; both argued to the trial court that Brescia had not identified his trade secret with particularity.

The trade secret claimant did not need to particularize how the alleged trade secret differed from matters already known to skilled persons in the field. The statute at issue required only identification of the trade secret with reasonable particularity. Brescia's August 2007 trade secret designation met the reasonable particularity standard of Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210. Brescia named two alleged trade secrets: his pudding formula and his manufacturing process. Brescia claimed that his formula produced a unique high protein, low carbohydrate pudding unlike any other healthy alternative pudding on the market. Brescia particularly described the details of his formula, listing the fifteen specific ingredients by common name and the percentage of the total pudding. Brescia also listed these same fifteen ingredients by their supplier and brand name. Brescia particularly described each step in the mixing, testing, and code marking of the pudding. This showing was adequate to permit respondents to investigate whether the alleged trade secrets were within the public domain and to prepare a defense. The trial court identified no deficiency in the trade secret designation that would hamper its ability to protect the parties' proprietary information or to determine the scope of relevant discovery.

University of Florida Levin College of Law Research Paper No. 2009-14
ELIZABETH A. ROWE, University of Florida - Fredric G. Levin College of Law Email: rowe@law.ufl.edu

This paper is grounded on the premise that sociological analysis can be of great benefit to trade secret law. More specifically, a sociological approach can improve our understanding of the social factors involved in the complex interplay between legal doctrine and compliance. As the first article to apply sociological analysis to trade secret law, this paper uses a group which constitutes the largest segment of the workforce, namely, Generation X and Generation Y (collectively referred to and coined in the Article as New Generation Employees) as a case study for analyzing how values and social norms influence compliance with trade secret laws. The Article examines the reported societal effects on the values of New Generation Employees. Unlike the Baby Boomers these New Generation Employees, for instance, are likely to change jobs quickly, protect and prioritize their self-interests, expect immediate gratification and rewards from employers, start their own companies, and use technology with great ease. It then discusses how the attitudes and behaviors of these New Generation Employees map closely to the circumstances that are often present in trade secret misappropriation cases. This suggests a possible upward trend in trade secret misappropriation as New Generation Employees outnumber others in the workforce. By drawing on the sociological literature, the Article, for the first time, applies theories about employee theft to trade secret misappropriation. It integrates the values of New Generation Employees with principles of equity theory, work climate theory, and societal change theory in a framework that (a) offers some insights into what motivates employees to misappropriate trade secrets, and (b) offers corresponding general preventive measures to protect trade secrets in the workplace. It also explores how New Generation Employees' values and norms could test existing legal doctrine related to trade secret misappropriation, ownership, and liability. Finally, the Article considers more broadly the importance and usefulness of studying attitudes, behaviors, and cultural influences in intellectual property. Changes in attitude about intellectual property in general might have implications for innovation, protection, compliance, and enforcement norms in the United States. The Article also posits that this kind of analysis which combines social science with intellectual property law might also be of some benefit to the frustrations United States companies experience in dealing with the foreign enforcement of their intellectual property rights.

Faiveley sued Wabtec for misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims. The trial court granted in part and denied in part Faiveley's motion for a preliminary injunction; the 2nd Circuit vacated and remanded.

During the 1970s, Faiveley's predecessor developed a unique air brake system designed to stop trains quickly and smoothly. The brakes in question are known as brake friction cylinder tread break units ("BFC TBU"). In 1993, Faiveley's predecessor entered into a license agreement with Wabco, then a sister company. Pursuant to the agreement, Wabco was authorized to use the predecessor's know how, including manufacturing data, specifications, designs, plans, and trade secrets to produce and market BFC TBU. In 2004, Faiveley acquired the licensor and assumed ownership of the intellectual property related to BFC TBU. At the time, Wabtec, Wabco's successor, was still producing BFC TBU parts and components pursuant to the agreement. Thereafter, Faiveley notified Wabtec that the agreement would not be renewed. Wabtec then began development of its own line of BFC TBU products through reverse engineering. In 2007, the New York City Transit Authority awarded a sole source contract to Wabtec. Faiveley alleges that Wabtec used its trade secrets to produce BFC TBU products for this contract.

Because the evidence did not support the conclusion (and the trial court did not find) that Faiveley would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of this relief, a preliminary injunction was not warranted. There was no error in the trial court's conclusion that the manufacturing drawings contained trade secrets under New York law. That this information was not widely known was evidenced by the fact that no company other than Faiveley (and Wabtec pursuant to the license agreement) had produced a complete BFC TBU. Faiveley had strictly limited the access of its own employees to the information and did not permit customers to view it. There was also ample support for the trial court's conclusion that Wabtec's reverse engineering process made important use of Faiveley's trade secrets. This process was fatally tainted by the involvement of Moore, a Wabtec employee who had frequent contact with Faiveley's drawings during the course of the license agreement. However, the trial court further found that Wabtec appeared to be treating Faiveley's trade secrets with the same confidentiality that Wabtec used for its own proprietary information. There was no indication that Wabtec had disclosed Faiveley's trade secrets to any third-party during the life of the license agreement or after it expired. There was little or no risk that Wabtec would further disclose or otherwise irreparably impair Faiveley's trade secrets.

Evan Hill
04-06-2009
The Recorder

A federal magistrate judge in Nevada sanctioned a Los Angeles firm, two of its lawyers and their client last Tuesday for what she called "scorched earth litigation tactics" in a trade secrets case.

Magistrate Judge Valerie Cooke of Nevada District Court imposed roughly $20,000 in sanctions on Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor. She handed down $102,205 in fines to Deborah Klar, an erstwhile attorney at the firm, and another $20,441 to Teri Pham, still with Liner Grode.

Cooke also ordered Klar and Pham to perform a combined 300 hours of pro bono work, a punishment that one ethics expert said was unique.

"The court concludes that the conduct of the Liner firm and its attorneys, Ms. Klar and Ms. Pham, was willfully reckless, intended to harass, done for an improper purpose, and was suffused with bad faith," Cooke wrote in her 54-page ruling. Cooke wrote that she would publish the order (PDF) for maximum deterrence, and, pointing specifically to Klar and Pham, also referred the matter to the Nevada and California state bars.

The magistrate gave the firm and lawyers until Friday to object to the district court and stayed her order in the meantime.

Her ruling was one of at least two last week referred to the California State Bar by judges: Los Angeles-based Irell & Manella was criticized in a Central District ruling Wednesday.

By: VICTOR EPSTEIN
BUSINESSWEEK

A Chinese national living in the United States has been accused of stealing a software program from his former U.S. employer and selling a modified version to the Chinese government after being fired.

Yan Zhu, 31, a resident of Lodi, was arrested Thursday for stealing programming-source code needed to modify the encrypted program as well as internal sales materials from the company, the FBI said. Authorities would not name the company or identify its corporate headquarters, saying only that it is located in Mercer County, New Jersey.

He and two conspirators sold the program to environmental protection agencies in China's Hebei and Shanxi provinces for about 10 percent of its $1.5 million value, according to the FBI.

BY JAMES NASH
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

If a group of Cincinnati teachers prevails in a case now before the Ohio Supreme Court, enterprising students might be able to ace their tests simply by using the state's public-records law to get a copy of the test before it's given.

The science teacher who brought the case, Paul Perrea, says the semester exams, which account for 25 percent of a student's grade, might have been poorly designed and might not reflect a student's actual learning. Without getting a copy of the test, however, it's impossible to be sure, Perrea says.

But the school district says that if standardized tests are declared public records, it would be open season for students and their parents to invoke the state's open-records laws to get their hands on tests they have not taken yet.

BY JOHN O'BRIEN

Plaintiffs firm Motley Rice make public documents stolen from paint company Sherwin-Williams, an Ohio judge ruled Thursday.

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge John O'Donnell signed a temporary restraining order that forbids Motley Rice from releasing or destroying a 34-page presentation made to Sherwin-Williams' board of directors. The firm is involved in litigation against the company, most notably in the State of Rhode Island's landmark lead paint case.

To continue reading this interesting article from Legal News Line, click here.

By Riya Bhattacharjee

Environmental activists, community organizers and Berkeley citizens have for years pressured the air district to ask Pacific Steel--located at Second and Gilman streets--to control what they say are odors and toxic emissions harmful to human health.

Carole Marasovic, a spokesperson for the Healthy Air Coalition, said she hoped the lawsuit would force BAAQMD to release the Odor Control Plan to the community. Pacific Steel submitted the plan to the air district in October 2008 after being cited for multiple air-quality violations.

The Oakland-based First Amendment Project, the coalition's lawyers, claim that BAAQMD denied all requests by the Healthy Air Coalition, private citizens and governmental agencies for a copy of the Odor Management Plan on the grounds that it contained trade secrets, and that BAAQMD instead invited Pacific Steel to file a lawsuit against BAAQMD to prevent release of any part of the plan.

To continue reading this article from The Berkeley Daily Planet, click here.

By BRADLEY J. FIKES

Aptera Motors is a year behind introducing its much-ballyhooed electric and hybrid vehicles. The first model to be made, the all-electric 2e, is scheduled to be available beginning this fall. A hybrid with a gas-powered generator that recharges the batteries will follow. The 2e will have a range of 200 miles, while the hybrid will get 250 to 300 miles per gallon, Aptera says.

From the beginning, the Aptera was designed to be built with composites, made of fibers from substances such as carbon, bonded with resin and molded into the preferred shape. The formula is a trade secret.

In order to continue reading this interesting article from North Country Times, click here.

Torrance. Berg-Nelson Company Inc., a Long Beach maker of rubber and metal hoses, belting and other products, recently won a $242,000 jury verdict in Los Angeles County Superior Court in Torrance, the company's law firm, Cummins & White, said Tuesday.

Berg-Nelson had accused Advanced Sealing and Supply Co. Inc. in Cerritos of misappropriating trade secrets by "wrongfully obtaining a sample of a proprietary, specialized fuel injection hose, allowing Advanced Sealing to reverse engineer the hose and avoid the expense and time involved with its own product development," Cummins & White said.

According to Berg-Nelson's lawsuit, filed in December 2006, the company's "co-gen" hose was designed and fabricated for turbine-generating units at Chevron El Segundo refinery, whose employees provided the hose to Advanced Sealing.

To continue reading this interesting article from The Daily Breeze, click here.

By: Andrew Clark

The US-based hospitality company Starwood has accused its rival Hilton of a "massive" case of industrial espionage through the alleged theft of more than 100,000 electronic files containing sensitive information about its luxurious W hotel chain.

Starwood claims that California-based Hilton has been under intense pressure for improved profits since it was bought by the private equity company Blackstone for $20bn in 2007.

Since going private, Hilton has hired 10 managers and executives from Starwood, which owns brands such as Sheraton, Westin and Le Meridien. According to a lawsuit filed by Starwood, two of these executives brought with them a vast store of trade secrets which Hilton used to develop a newly launched concept, Denizen Hotels.

To continue reading this interesting article from guardian.co.uk, click here.

By: Jim Kouri
(The following is based on a redacted report obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police.)

Yan Zhu, also known as "Westerly Zhu", age 31, a Chinese citizen in the U.S. on a work visa, was arrested Friday morning by FBI agents at his residence, 9 Victor Street, Apt 26, Lodi, New Jersey, on charges of theft of trade secrets, conspiracy, wire fraud, and theft of honest services fraud announced Weysan Dun, Special Agent In Charge.

According to the criminal complaint filed in Federal District Court in Trenton, Zhu was employed at "Company A" as a senior environmental engineer from May of 2006 until his termination in July of 2008. Company A is a comprehensive multi-media environmental information management portal that developed a proprietary software program for the Chinese market which allows users to manage air emissions, ambient water quality, and ground water quality.

To continue reading this interesting article from Canada Free Press, click here.

Activision is embroiled in a legal hassle with Scratch DJ Game LLC, a joint venture between Genius Products and Numark Industries.

Activision had tried to acquire Genius and its Scratch: The Ultimate DJ game. Genius didn't want to know. Activision then bought 7 Studios, which was contracted to Genius. A release from Genius now claims that Activision and 7 "began conspiring to prevent Scratch from getting to market on a timely basis by withholding work product, code and the proprietary game controller."

The suit has been brought against Activision and California 7 Studios and its Chief Executive Officer, Lewis Peterson in Southern California. It alleges "that Activision has engaged in intentional interference with contract, breach of contract, conversion and misappropriation of trade secrets obtained from Genius to purchase 7 Studios..."

To continue reading this interesting article from Spong, click here.

By Patrick Barnard
Senior Web Editor

A federal court in Utah has awarded HD conferencing company ClearOne with approximately $9.7 million in damages as part of its trade secret misappropriation case against WideBand (News - Alert) Solutions Inc. and Biamp Systems Corporation.

The ruling names three of WideBand's principals, Dr. Jun Yang (the former ClearOne employee), Andrew Chiang (previously affiliated with an entity that sold certain assets to ClearOne), and Lonny Bowers. Also named is a company owned primarily by Yang called Versatile DSP, Inc.

The court ruled that Biamp also infringed on ClearOne's patented technology because it "deliberately ignored numerous warning signs suggesting that the AEC technology offered by WideBand was not WideBand's to sell."

To continue reading this interesting article from TMC.net, click here.

By: Zusha Elinson
The Recorder

A San Jose, Calif., jury hit Luna Innovations for $36 million in damages in a trade secret case Tuesday, handing Hansen Medical and its lawyers at Morrison & Foerster the victory.

The jury took 1 1/2 days to come to a verdict. They found that Luna broke an agreement it had to help Hansen develop a robotic catheter and misused trade secrets to land a lucrative contract with a Hansen competitor, Intuitive Surgical Inc., instead.

Mountain View, Calif.'s Hansen asked for $39 million at trial, and the jury obliged with $36 million -- $26 million in lost profits, $10 million in unjust enrichment and $95,000 in actual damages.

To continue reading this interesting article from The Recorder, click here.

By: Paul Briand 
Manchester Democrat Examiner

FairPoint Communications has presented a plan to address a long list of customer complaints. But pieces of that plan are being kept from the public because, according to the company, they are trade secrets.

FairPoint took over telecommunications in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont from Verizon a year ago and in January started the troubled cut-over of phone and internet services to its own systems.

New Hampshire's Office of Consumer Affairs received 1,400 complaints about FairPoint in March alone.

To continue reading this interesting article from Manchester-Democrat-Examiner, click here.

By Janine Anderson

The Clorox Co. wants a federal judge to keep SC Johnson from employing the man it has hired to be its new senior vice president of global product supply.

Timothy Bailey resigned from Clorox in April, and is expected to start work with SCJ the first week of May. The Oakland, Calif. company has now sued SCJ, claiming violations of laws that protect trade secrets.

Among the "trade secrets" Clorox says Bailey possesses are knowledge of the company's global supply relationships, terms of supplier contracts, price-setting strategies, research and development, company strategies and operations leadership.

To continue reading this interesting article from The Journal Times Online, click here.

By: Chris Preimesberger

A jury denies the claim for than $100 million in damages from Sun for alleged patent infringement, breach of contract, interference with an existing contract, trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition that had been filed by Versata, formerly called Trilogy Software. Versata claimed Sun stole its technology for a product configurator designed to model a software development project throughout the entire product cycle, from requirements to marketing and sales.

Sun Microsystems received some welcome news April 27 when a jury in Marshall, Texas, turned down a complicated 3-year-old patent infringement and trade secrets lawsuit brought by software development company Versata.

To continue reading this interesting article from eweek.com, click here.

Posted by Richard Koman

In an unusual development, Judge Marilyn Patel kicked out the public from the RealDVD injunction hearing, saying that details of DVD encryption were trade secrets that need to be protected. Real and Cnet objected strenuously, as News.com reports.

"I find that this does meet the requirements for a trade secret," Patel said. "We're going to protect what needs to be protected. I'm ordering everyone not signed off on a confidentiality agreement to leave the courtroom."

To continue reading this interesting article from ZNet.com, click here.

By: Greg Sandoval

The film industry once again successfully convinced U.S District Marilyn Patel to boot the public from the courtroom during the RealDVD hearing on Wednesday.
Attorneys from the DVD Copy Control Association, the group formed to protect DVDs from piracy, informed Patel that they wanted the courtroom closed during the testimony that would discuss anything the DVD-CCA considered a trade secret.

The issue of whether there is a trade secret should have briefed in advanced," said Myers, from the law firm of Holme Roberts & Owen. There may be a trade secret but it also may mean that the court is being closed to protect something that doesn't exist."

To continue reading this interesting article from CNET News, click here.