Friday, March 19, 2010

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: February 2010 Trade Secret Violation Lawsuits


The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


CAPTIVE CONCEPTS, LLC v. ARTHUR J. WILLIAMS, ET AL.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:10-CV-01230
FILED: 2/18/2010

The misappropriation of trade secrets because “Plaintiff’s website is confidential and proprietary information owned by Plaintiff” likely won’t be successful. The reason for bringing a trade secret claim is because many states enhance damages, enable the recovery of attorneys’ fees, and/or have a far lower threshold for obtaining injunctive relief. HTML that is readily available through the “view source” function of a browser can certainly be protected by copyright, but not protected as a trade secret. Always consider the remedies available, what you can recover and how quickly you might be able to attack a problem, in deciding upon how you are going to proceed. Decisions made early in a dispute can often define the course of the litigation, the expense involved in pursuing the case, and of course the outcome.

The Plaintiff and Defendants apparently had some type of relationship in which they collaborated in offering printed materials and artwork online. Defendants are alleged to have copied the Plaintiff’s website and launched it surreptitiously in order to compete against the Plaintiff.

Claims for relief include copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and tortious interference with prospective business advantage. Plaintiff requests injunctive relief, an accounting of profits, compensatory damages, consequential damages, exemplary damages, cost of suit, attorney’s fees and other legal costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1407.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: January 2010 Trade Secret Violation Lawsuits


The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


J.C. BROMAC CORPORATION v. CALIFORNIA SUNRIDERS, ET AL.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:10-CV-00630
FILED: 1/28/2010

Big businesses enter into confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements all the time and comfort can be taken in the fact that these businesses have deep pockets, a brand to protect, and hopefully an understanding of business ethics. More often than not, doing business on the web means that you are not dealing with big businesses, the risk of loss of trade secrets is far greater, the “deep” pockets far shallower, the brands that could be tarnished by his conduct almost non-existent, and a code of ethics a mere figment of the imagination. Don’t take big business policies and practices relating to the protection of intellectual property and trade secrets and try to implement those in the Internet arena when small businesses are involved. When you are doing deals with other companies, recognize that there is often a minimal amount of leverage available to assure compliance with promises made.

The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of renting Harley Davidson motorcycles and providing guided and self-guided tours to tourists worldwide. The Defendants are former employees/managers for the Plaintiff. They are alleged to have left the employment of the Plaintiff and launched a competing business despite the existence of a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement.

The lawsuit alleges misappropriation of trade secrets and aiding and abetting the misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, breach of contract, breach of duty and loyalty, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with and conspiracy to interfere with prospective economic advantage, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, violation of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the California Penal code 502, and unjust enrichment/imposition of constructive trust. Plaintiff requests declaratory relief against all Defendants and an accounting of profits, as well as general, special, and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1393.


TES FRANCHISING, LLC, ET AL. v. ERIC J. DOMBACH, ET AL.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (ALLENTOWN)
5:10-CV-00017
FILED: 1/04/2010

Non-disclosure agreements are vastly overrated in their importance, at least in the Internet industry. If you are going to disclose trade secrets to a third party and rely upon a non-disclosure agreement to protect those secrets first consider what they party who is signing the agreement has to lose if there is a breach. Once trade secrets are disclosed into the public arena the fact that you might have a valid legal claim against someone who signed a non-disclosure agreement isn’t much consolation. If you are going to hand over your trade secrets, make sure you are dealing with a party who is highly motivated to comply with the contract, no matter how your prospective business relationship pans out.

This is a class action lawsuit and the Plaintiffs are various franchisees providing business coaching to entities wishing to purchase franchises. The Defendants are alleged to have breached a non-disclosure agreement and misappropriated trade secrets by launching a competing website.

The lawsuit alleges breach of non-disclosure agreement, breach of confidentiality agreement, and breach of duty of loyalty. The claim for relief includes a request for an award of actual and compensatory damages in an amount well in excess of $150,000, an accounting of revenues and profits, damages sufficient to deprive Defendants business of any benefit of enrichment from their wrongful conduct, damages in the amount paid to Dombach during his engagement with Plaintiffs which is in excess of $251,000, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1394.