Remedies

Subscribe to Remedies via RSS

The recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., illustrates the flexible approach taken by courts when considering the calculation of compensatory damages in trade secrets cases. No. 21-5345, 2022 WL 16846585 (6th Cir. Nov. 10, 2022) There, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a jury’s compensatory damages verdict which awarded the plaintiff its research and development costs for its misappropriated trade secret even though the underlying trade secret was not destroyed through disclosure or other means. Id. at *15.
Continue Reading Reap What You Sow – Sixth Circuit Affirms Recovery of Research and Development Costs to Agricultural Company in Trade Secret Case

The tension between encouraging free and fair competition and protecting competitive advantages derived from hard work and ingenuity is at the very heart of trade secrets law. Among other things, this tension manifests itself in the gray areas endemic to any legal analysis of what information may constitute a “trade secret.” In comparison, assessing the behavior of those accused of misappropriating trade secrets can sometimes be a much more straightforward exercise. And it seems that the more egregious (and less “gray”) the behavior, the more likely a court is to exercise its limited discretion to restrain competition at the preliminary relief stage to prevent disclosure and use of misappropriated trade secrets. The 3rd Circuit’s recent decision in Matthews International Corp. v. Lombardi(October 12, 2022) is a timely example of this principle.
Continue Reading One Bad Apple Won’t Spoil the Rest of the Bunch’s Ability to Fairly Compete in Matthews International Corp. v. Lombardi

Should a defendant found liable for stealing trade secrets have to fork over all of the research and development costs it theoretically avoided by misappropriating the secrets? Yes, according to the “avoided costs” theory of unjust enrichment that is gaining traction and resulting in large verdicts in DTSA and UTSA cases around the country.[1] 
Continue Reading The Developing “Avoided Costs” Remedy in Trade Secret Litigation

While preliminary injunctions are not uncommon in trade secrets misappropriation cases, a recent Fifth Circuit decision highlighted the importance that the movant put forth colorable evidence of misappropriator “use” of the trade secrets in preliminary injunction cases. In CAE INTEGRATED, L.L.C.; Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, L.L.C. v. MOOV TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED; Nicholas Meissner — F.5th — (2022) 2022 WL 3210358 , the Fifth Circuit affirmed denial of a preliminary injunction for the lack of evidence showing such use. In this case, CAE sued Meissner, a former employee, and MOOV, his subsequent employer, for trade secret misappropriation in the Western District of Texas under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA). CAE also moved for a preliminary injunction, which was denied. CAE appealed that denial in the Fifth Circuit.
Continue Reading Insufficient Evidence: Fifth Circuit Affirms Denial of Preliminary Injunction for Trade Secret Misappropriation

Litigators know it is generally not easy to recover attorneys’ fees in defense of a trade secret misappropriation action. The Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) permits a court to “award reasonable attorneys’  fees” to the defendant when a claim of misappropriation  is “made in bad faith,” which “may be established by circumstantial evidence.”[1] But what exactly does bad faith mean and what is the threshold?
Continue Reading A High Mountain to Climb: Filing DTSA Claims Without any Evidence is Not Enough to Meet “Bad Faith” Standard for Awarding Attorneys’ Fees to Opponent

Over the past two years, employee mobility seems to be at an all-time high.  In fact, the labor market is so fluid that pundits and experts often refer to it as the “Great Resignation.”  Although employee mobility can be a great opportunity for both employees and prospective employers, employers hiring new employees should always beware of potential problems such as restrictive covenants, which may follow an employee to a new job.
Continue Reading Void vs. Voidable: The Distinction That Can Make or Break a Tortious Interference Claim in Light of the Great Resignation

Trade secret litigation presents a variety of procedural and practical complexities at every stage of the proceeding. One of the most important—yet often overlooked—issues in these cases can be summarized by the following question:
Continue Reading Signed, Sealed, Delivered? Fifth Circuit Finds Sealing of Sensitive Information Requires Far More Than a Protective Order

This month, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in DePuy Synthes Sales v. Howmedica Osteonics  held that a U.S. district court in California properly invalidated a foreign choice-of-law and forum selection provision under California Labor Code § 925, and denied a motion to transfer the case to a different venue.  While this might seem at first blush like a technical issue of federalism and contractual interpretation, the decision indicates that federal courts in the Ninth Circuit will also apply California’s partial prohibition on the use of foreign forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses as to employees.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Upholds Application of California Labor Code To Contractual Forum-Selection and Choice-of-Law Clause To Keep Dispute Over Non-Compete Clause in California

On July 9, 2021 President Joe Biden issued an Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy, which urges the Attorney General and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to curb the use of non-compete and no-poach agreements.  The Executive Order aims  to foster a “fair, open, and competitive marketplace,” and calls for a “whole-of-government” approach to reverse trends of industry consolidation and anticompetitive practices. The Order indicates these trends have harmed employees’ wages, work conditions, and mobility.  It further targets what it characterizes as the “overuse” of non-compete agreements and other barriers to entry in certain markets.
Continue Reading President’s Executive Order Aims to Foster a Competitive Marketplace

In trade secrets litigation, it is often critical to expeditiously obtain protection from further disclosure or continued misappropriation of the trade secret at issue through a motion for preliminary injunction.  Courts are quick to point out, however, that preliminary injunctions are “an extraordinary and drastic remedy,” and are only to be granted if the movant, “by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion” as to each element of the preliminary injunction test.  Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (observing that to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a plaintiff must generally demonstrate that: “1) he is likely to succeed on the merits of such a claim; 2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; 3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and 4) that an injunction is in the public interest.”).
Continue Reading Trade Secret Litigants Take Note: California District Court Provides Guidance on Obtaining a Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Discovery