Last week, ProLogic, Inc. (ProLogic) voluntarily dismissed — without a settlement — the last of the claims remaining in its lawsuit against Aquarian Systems, Inc. (Aquarian) and two former employees who became employees of Aquarian. A team of Crowell & Moring lawyers successfully represented Aquarian and, after the claims against Aquarian were dismissed by ProLogic in May, the individual defendants. What began as a complaint seeking $25 million in damages for alleged trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference, and breach of contract, ended with a dismissal of all claims against Aquarian and the individual defendants, without any settlement or payment.

The claims in the complaint centered around the alleged misappropriation of software created by ProLogic and delivered to the U.S. Department of State (DoS). Aquarian served as the administrator of that software as a subcontractor to ProLogic. The DoS contract, however, was established as a small business set aside, rendering ProLogic ineligible for the continuation of the contract.  Aquarian, a small business, submitted a proposal for the new contract and won.

From the beginning, the defendants viewed ProLogic’s claims as lacking merit. The defendants’ position was that there could have been no misappropriation of trade secrets because the software resided only on government systems, and DoS has a broad license to it. Additionally, ProLogic was ineligible to continue working on the Department of State contract because of its size. In fact, ProLogic failed to even bid on the new contract.  Therefore, ProLogic suffered no avoidable loss, and its tortious interference and non-compete claims were also doomed to fail.

Read more about this case in Law360 (subscription required).

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Christine B. Hawes Christine B. Hawes

Christine B. Hawes is a counsel in Crowell & Moring’s Labor & Employment Group. Christine’s practice focuses on litigation of individual and class actions arising in all areas of labor and employment law, including:

  • Wage-and-hour laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, the

Christine B. Hawes is a counsel in Crowell & Moring’s Labor & Employment Group. Christine’s practice focuses on litigation of individual and class actions arising in all areas of labor and employment law, including:

  • Wage-and-hour laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Service Contract Act, and state and local laws
  • Title VII and state anti-discrimination laws
  • Americans with Disabilities Act
  • Family and Medical Leave Act and related state statutes
  • Federal and state whistleblower statutes, including the False Claims Act
  • Alleged wrongful termination
  • Non-competition agreements and other employee contracts
  • Misappropriation of trade secrets claims

Christine also provides counseling to clients on a wide variety of employment issues, including personnel policies, non-competition/non-solicitation agreements, employee discipline, contract disputes, and alleged retaliation under the False Claims Act, Title VII, the FLSA, and state whistleblower statutes. Christine frequently advises clients on and conducts internal investigations that frequently address employment, ethics, and compliance issues.  Additionally, Christine assists clients with affirmative action compliance, preparing affirmative action plans, analyzing compensation practices, and providing counseling in connection with Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs audits.

Photo of John E. McCarthy Jr. John E. McCarthy Jr.

John E. McCarthy, Jr. is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Crowell & Moring and member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group. John has spent more than thirty years litigating all forms of government contracts cases for both large and small…

John E. McCarthy, Jr. is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Crowell & Moring and member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group. John has spent more than thirty years litigating all forms of government contracts cases for both large and small government contractors, with a particular emphasis on bid protests. Because of John’s strong engineering background, he has particular experience in technology related issues, including litigation regarding complex technology and data rights, patent and other intellectual property issues.