In December 2017, Swarmify, Inc. filed a lawsuit against CloudFlare, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The tech companies both have video streaming products. According to the Swarmify complaint, CloudFlare stole Swarmify’s trade secrets revealed during negotiations between the two companies. Specifically, Swarmify alleged that CloudFlare used its trade

Following the high-profile trade secrets litigation and settlement between Waymo and Uber in February 2018, covered previously in this blog, a defamation claim was filed by four Uber employees against Uber’s former global intelligence manager, Richard Jacobs. The case alleges that Jacobs defamed the four plaintiffs by accusing them — initially in an intra-office

On Monday, April 9, Facebook settled a trade secrets case brought against it in California federal court by BladeRoom Group Limited.

BladeRoom, a data center construction company, alleged that Facebook had used and divulged its trade secrets, specifically its methodology regarding efficient construction and implementation of pre‑fabricated data centers. BladeRoom had first presented to the

Fera Pharmaceuticals LLC, Akorn Inc., and Perrigo Co. PLC have settled a $100 million trade secrets case three weeks before trial was set to begin in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The case primarily involved trade secrets related to the production of erythromycin.  In its lawsuit filed in 2012,

On October 10, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari challenging the Ninth Circuit’s holding that Power Ventures, Inc. had violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) by accessing Facebook user accounts.

Power provided a platform whereby its members could access their various social media accounts in one place.  Power received authorization from Facebook users for this service after sending them messages through the social media platform.  Facebook responded by sending Power a cease-and-desist letter demanding that Power immediately stop its access of Facebook computers.  Power nevertheless continued, evading Facebook’s attempts to block it.

Facebook filed a lawsuit in federal court in 2008 alleging that Power had used Facebook trademarks to send upwards of 60,000 spam messages to Facebook users to deceive them into thinking the messages were from Facebook, then stored and saved user account information outside the reach and protection of Facebook.
Continue Reading

In the hotly contested case of Calendar Research LLC v. StubHub, Inc. et al., which is venued in the Central District of California, the plaintiff alleges misappropriation of trade secrets. Recently, the federal judge overseeing the litigation ruled that a source code expert, who had served very early in the litigation as a neutral evaluator for the parties to determine whether the defendant’s source code was based on Plaintiff’s misappropriated code, was disqualified from being used as an expert witness by defendant, StubHub, at trial.

On September 22, 2017, Hon. Stephen V. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled on plaintiff Calendar Research LLC’s motion to disqualify tech expert Dr. Cynthia Lee from serving as an expert witness for defendant StubHub, Inc. at trial.

The District Court noted in its opinion that early in the case, the parties had agreed to retain Dr. Lee as a neutral evaluator to analyze source code from all parties related to Calendar Research’s arguments that its former employee, Michael Gray, had stolen its trade secrets, including the source code of its primary product—a smartphone application called “Klutch.” That product purports to simplify scheduling of business meetings and meetups.  As part of her evaluation, Dr. Lee had entered into confidentiality agreements with the parties, received proprietary source code from the parties, and ultimately provided the parties with a written report of findings.  Months later, StubHub designated Dr. Lee as its expert for the case, a designation which Calendar Research immediately challenged.
Continue Reading

In addition to federal and state‑specific hurdles facing employers who wish to utilize non‑compete agreements, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court has provided a warning to employers across the country that those agreements can be stricken for seemingly unrelated employment issues.

On September 22, 2017, in the case of SpaceAge Consulting Corp. v. Maria Vizconde et al. (case no. A-3444-15T1), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, held that an employer had no ability to prevent its former employee from working for its direct client despite the existence of a non‑compete agreement expressly covering that client.  The Court noted that the employee was not paid properly by the employer during her training period and thus found that because the employment and non‑compete “agreements violated federal law, they were void and unenforceable.” Id. at *12.
Continue Reading