IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Trade Secrets
Subscribe to Trade Secrets's Posts

Jury Trial on Legal Issue Denied, But No Harm Done

by | Aug 29, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of a jury trial, concluding it was harmless error because the defendant would have been entitled to a directed verdict regardless. Overwell Harvest Ltd. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc., Case No. 23-2150 (7th Cir. Aug. 12, 2024) (Kirsch, Pryor, Kolar, JJ.)

Overwell Harvest was established to invest in Neurensic, a company specializing in market surveillance technology. Despite Overwell’s investment of millions of dollars, Neurensic faced significant financial distress, leading its management to pursue a sale. Neurensic’s CEO and COO accepted an offer from Trading Technologies, which subsequently hired former Neurensic employees with the CEO and COO’s approval. Prior to the sale, Overwell submitted a competing bid, to which Trading Technologies responded by raising its offer. Neurensic chose to accept Trading Technologies’ offer.

Overwell sued Trading Technologies for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties by Neurensic’s leadership. The district court dismissed Overwell’s jury demand and ruled that the claim was equitable despite the damages sought. In a bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of Trading Technologies, determining that Overwell waived its claims that Trading Technologies had aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by Neurensic’s leadership. The district court’s decision was based on Overwell’s failure to advance arguments concerning improper notice to shareholders regarding the vote on Trading Technologies’ offer. Overwell appealed.

The Seventh Circuit decided that Overwell had a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial because the case involved legal relief in addition to equitable relief. While the Court agreed that Overwell’s claim for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty under Delaware law was historically equitable, the request for compensatory and punitive damages constituted legal relief. The Court emphasized that even if a claim is equitable, the pursuit of legal relief (such as money damages) entitles a party to a jury trial. The Seventh Circuit determined that the district court erred by denying Overwell this right because determining legal relief is traditionally the role of a jury.

The Seventh Circuit concluded that this error was harmless, however, because under Delaware law Trading Technologies would have been entitled to a directed verdict. The Court explained that a directed verdict is appropriate when no reasonable jury could find for the losing party based on the evidence, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the losing party.

The Seventh Circuit rejected Overwell’s breach of fiduciary duty claims, finding that the alleged breaches lacked merit under the Delaware standard for aiding and abetting fiduciary breaches. First, the Court held that Overwell failed to show that Trading Technologies knowingly participated in a fiduciary breach, as the continued servicing of Neurensic’s customers by former employees benefitted Neurensic, not Trading Technologies.

Second, the Seventh Circuit determined that Overwell’s claim of blocking competitive bids could not succeed as Neurensic still held its most valuable asset – its source code – and could have repossessed its servers. Trading Technologies’ negotiation tactics were permissible under Delaware law, which allows [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Insuring Innovation: Software Code May Be Protected as an Arrangement

by | Aug 22, 2024 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit once again remanded a trade secret and copyright dispute involving software for generating life insurance quotes, finding that the district court erred by failing to consider the copyrightability of the source code’s arrangement. As to the trade secret claim, however, the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court did not err in finding that the defendants misappropriated the trade secrets at issue and could be held jointly and severally liable, despite varying levels of culpability. Compulife Software, Inc. v. Newman, Case No. 21-14074 (11th Cir. Aug. 1, 2024) (Jordan, Brasher, Abudu, JJ.)

Compulife’s software generates life insurance quotes using a proprietary database of insurance rates. The software produces a quote by using blocks of code, arranged in a particular manner, that correspond to different data points such as state, birth month, birthday, birth year, sex and smoking status. Compulife licenses its software to customers and offers an online version to the public.

David Rutstein is a former insurance agent who is permanently barred from the profession. Rutstein misled Compulife into giving him its software by pretending that he worked with someone who had a license to use it. Rutstein then created and registered several websites in his son’s name using Compulife’s software in connection with the sites. One of the websites was later owned by Aaron Levy. Rutstein and Levy directed an employee, Moses Newman, to launch a scraping attack on Compulife’s website to get millions of quotes, which they used for their own websites. Compulife’s sales declined as a result.

Compulife sued Rutstein, Rutstein’s son, Levy and Newman for copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets, among other claims. After a bench trial, the parties appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit directed the district court to make more specific findings. After a second bench trial, the district court determined that the defendants did not infringe Compulife’s software by copying it and using it for their own website, but they did misappropriate Compulife’s trade secrets. The defendants were held jointly and severally liable despite differing degrees of culpability. All parties appealed.

Compulife argued that the district court erred in concluding that the defendants did not infringe its copyright. The Eleventh Circuit agreed in part, finding that the district court incorrectly applied the abstraction-filtration-comparison test used in software copyright infringement analyses. Compulife claimed that the arrangement of its various source code elements (e.g., state, birth month, birthday, birth year and sex) was a creative and therefore protectable form of expression. The Court agreed that the arrangement was potentially protectable, similar to its holding in another case that the arrangement of yacht listings in a boat guide could be protectable. BUC Int’l v. Int’l Yacht Council (11th Cir. 2007). The Court remanded the copyright infringement analysis to the district court, finding that it erred in the abstraction step because it “never identified the entire arrangement of these variables in the code as a constituent component of the code.” The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, however, with [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Don’t Share Trade Secrets With Your Fiancé: A Cautionary Tale

by | Aug 15, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit largely affirmed a multimillion-dollar award against a temp agency for misappropriation of trade secrets and unjust enrichment due to its employee’s act of obtaining proprietary information from his fiancée, who worked at a competitor placement firm. BioPoint, Inc. v. Dickhaut, et al., Case No. 23-1575 (1st Cir. July 30, 2024) (Rikelman, Lynch, Howard, JJ.) (Rikelman, dissenting in part).

BioPoint is a Massachusetts-based life sciences consulting firm that places highly skilled candidates in temporary positions at pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and medical device companies. Leah Attis was one of the company’s top salespeople. Catapult is a Texas-based placement company. It opened a Boston office in 2017 and hired Attis’s fiancé, Andrew Dickhaut, as managing director. When business did not go well at Catapult’s Boston office, Attis began to help Dickhaut place candidates by giving him proprietary information about candidates and rates from BioPoint’s database, even though Catapult did not initially operate in the life sciences sector. As a result, Catapult eventually entered into a managed services provider agreement with biotechnology company Vedanta, whereby Catapult would manage all of Vedanta’s labor contracts and would have the first opportunity to fill openings there. Attis continued to give Dickhaut information on candidates from BioPoint’s system to help with Vedanta openings.

Upon discovering that it lost a candidate placement to Catapult because of Attis’s interventions, BioPoint fired her in December 2019. BioPoint then sued Catapult and Dickhaut for federal and state law claims, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The case proceeded to trial, and the district court divided the claims between a jury trial for the legal claims and a bench trial for equitable relief. The jury found that Catapult had misappropriated trade secrets and tortiously interfered with BioPoint’s relationship with the candidate that Attis helped Dickhaut place. The jury awarded BioPoint more than $300,000 in damages. At the bench trial on the equitable claims, the district court found that all profits that Catapult derived from its relationship with Vedanta arose on account of misappropriation of trade secrets and were recoverable as unjust enrichment. The district court awarded treble damages jointly against Dickhaut and Catapult, totaling more than $5 million. Catapult appealed.

While the First Circuit largely affirmed the district court and the jury’s findings, the First Circuit found two errors. First, the Court found that the district court erred in awarding BioPoint both the lost profits from the placement of the candidate and the unjust enrichment that accrued to Catapult as the result of the placement. The Court explained that the law does not permit the lost profits to be counted twice and reduced the award by more than $150,000, which was the amount that the district court had awarded for the loss of the candidate.

Second, the First Circuit found that the district court erred in finding Dickhaut jointly and severally liable for the entirety of his employer’s unjust enrichment, calling it “a bridge too far.” Since the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

One Bite at the Apple Where State and Federal Jurisdiction Is Concurrent

by | Aug 15, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a federal district court’s dismissal of a case on res judicata grounds after a state court issued a decision on different claims but had concurrent jurisdiction over the claims alleged in the federal case. Beijing Neu Cloud Oriental Sys. Tech. Co. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., Case No. 22-3132 (2d Cir. July 25, 2024) (Livingston, Menashi, Kahn, JJ.)

Beijing Neu Cloud Oriental System Technology filed suit in federal district court against several International Business Machines companies (collectively, IBM defendants) asserting a single claim for trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). Shortly thereafter, Neu Cloud also sued the IBM defendants in New York state court, alleging state law causes of action for unfair competition, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and tortious interference.

The state court dismissed the claims. After the state court issued its decision, the IBM defendants moved to dismiss the federal action, arguing that:

  • Neu Cloud’s claim was time-barred.
  • Neu Cloud failed to state a plausible DTSA claim.
  • The judgment of the New York Supreme Court precluded the instant DTSA claim under res judicata.

The district court granted the motion to dismiss, agreeing with the IBM defendants on the DTSA claims but not on the effect of res judicata. Neu Cloud appealed the dismissal of its complaint. The Second Circuit only considered the arguments related to the IBM defendants’ res judicata defense.

Applying New York law to determine the preclusive effect of the state court’s judgment, the Second Circuit explained that under New York preclusion law “a party may not litigate a claim where a judgment on the merits exists from a prior action between the same parties involving the same subject matter.” This rule applies if the subsequent claim was “actually litigated” in the prior action or if it merely “could have been raised in the prior litigation.”

The Second Circuit found that the district court’s decision was on the merits and the trade secret claims could have been raised in the state court action. The Court held that the New York state court would have been competent to adjudicate the DTSA claim since jurisdiction for DTSA actions is not exclusive to federal courts. The Court noted that the plain text of the DTSA is strong evidence that Congress intended for jurisdiction over DTSA claims to be federal and state concurrent. Moreover, the Second Circuit found that the legislative history revealed no evidence that Congress affirmatively intended to confer exclusive jurisdiction over DTSA claims on the federal courts. The Court noted that many other circuit courts had come to the same conclusion.

Since the parties were clearly the same, the state court case involved the same subject matter, and the claims alleged the same injury and arose out of the same or related facts, the Second Circuit stated that the relevant question was whether Neu Cloud should have sought recovery in state court for its claim of trade secret [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Missed Appropriation: Massive Trade Secret Verdict Vacated

by | Aug 8, 2024 |

The Court of Appeals of Virginia vacated a $2 billion award in a trade secret misappropriation case based on a series of evidential errors and improper jury instructions. Pegasystems Inc. v. Appian Corporation, Case No. 1399-22-4 (Va. Ct. App. 2024) (Beales, Friedman, Callins, JJ.)

Pegasystems and Appian are both companies in the business process management (BMP) industry and offer platforms that allow third parties to build software applications. Appian accused Pega of trade secret misappropriation, presenting evidence that Pega used the employee of a licensee of Appian’s technology to pass trade secrets to Pega, thereby enabling Pega to better market its own technology and exploit Appian’s weaknesses. Pega’s “spy,” Youyong Zou, recorded almost 100 videos of Appian’s platform and used them to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of Appian’s system in tutorials sent to Pega. Appian brough an action against Pega and Zou under the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act (VUTSA) and the Virginia Computer Crimes Act. At trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Appian, finding that Pega and Zou misappropriated Appian’s trade secrets in violation of VUTSA. The jury awarded Appian damages in excess of $2 billion, which was the largest damages verdict in Virginia’s history. Pega appealed.

The Appellate Court found that although Appian did not fail as a matter of law to prove evidence of trade secret misappropriation, the trial court erred in instructing the jury by failing to place the burden of proximate causation on Appian, as required by both VUTSA and Virginia precedent. The Appellate Court found that this error resulted in a potentially excessive award that assumed all of Pega’s sales were tainted by the misappropriation. The Appellate Court instructed that on remand, Appian bears the burden of proving that the misappropriation caused the alleged damages and proving the amount of damages attributable to the trade secret with reasonable certainty. The Appellate Court also found that the trial court erroneously excluded key evidence that could have established that much of Pega’s revenue had nothing to do with the alleged misappropriation.

The Appellate Court further found that the trial court erred in excluding evidence that Pega argued would establish that many of the allegedly stolen features actually predated Pega’s contact with Zou. The trial court had excluded the evidence because the original laptop with this evidence had become inoperable. The trial court had refused to allow Pega the opportunity to authenticate the evidence and introduce the software on a new laptop. The Appellate Court found that this refusal was an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Court concluded that Pega was entitled to introduce a copy of this software under the rules of evidence, even if it was not on the original laptop.

Finally, the Appellate Court determined that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the number of people with access to Appian’s trade secrets was “not relevant” to “any issue in this case.” The Appellate Court found that Pega’s evidence that “thousands” of people potentially had access to Appian’s [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Message Received: Trade Secret Law Damages Available for Sales Outside US

by | Jul 18, 2024 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, in a matter of first impression, a district court’s decision to apply trade secret law extraterritorially and award trade secret damages for foreign sales while also finding that the copyright damages award needed to be reduced to eliminate foreign sales. Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Ltd., Case Nos. 22-2370; -2413 (7th Cir. July 2, 2024) (Hamilton, Brennan, St. Eve., JJ.)

Motorola Solutions and Hytera compete globally in the market for two-way radio systems. Motorola spent years and tens of millions of dollars developing trade secrets embodied in its line of high-end digital mobile radio (DMR) products. Hytera struggled to overcome technical challenges to develop its own competing DMR products. After failing for years, Hytera hatched a plan to “leap-frog Motorola” by stealing its trade secrets. Hytera, headquartered in China, hired three engineers from Motorola in Malaysia, offering them high-paying jobs in exchange for Motorola’s proprietary information. Before the engineers left Motorola, acting at Hytera’s direction, they downloaded thousands of documents and computer files containing Motorola’s trade secrets and copyrighted source code. Hytera relied on the stolen material to develop and launch a line of DMR radios that were functionally indistinguishable from Motorola’s DMR radios. Hytera sold these DMR radios in the United States and abroad.

Motorola sued Hytera for copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation. The jury found that Hytera had violated both the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) and the Copyright Act. The jury awarded compensatory damages under the Copyright Act and both compensatory and punitive damages under the DTSA for a total award of $765 million. The district court later reduced the award to $544 million, which included $136 million in copyright damages and $408 million in trade secrets damages. Hytera appealed.

Hytera conceded liability and instead challenged the damages award under both the Copyright Act and the DTSA. Among other things, Hytera argued that copyright and trade secret damages should not have been awarded for its sales outside the US. With respect to the copyright award, the Seventh Circuit agreed that Motorola failed to show a domestic violation of the Copyright Act and therefore was not entitled to recover damages for any of Hytera’s foreign sales of infringing products as unjust enrichment. Specifically, to show a domestic violation of the Copyright Act, Motorola had asserted that its code was copied from servers based in Chicago. While the district court accepted Motorola’s argument, the Seventh Circuit found that this factual finding lacked adequate support in the record, citing Motorola’s expert’s admission that there was no evidence of downloads from the Chicago servers. The Court instead found that given the location of the employees in Malaysia, it was likelier that the code was downloaded from Motorola’s Malaysia server. The Court therefore reversed the $136 million copyright award and remanded with instructions to limit the copyright award to Hytera’s domestic sales of infringing products.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed with respect to the trade secret award. Like the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Shell Shocked: Judge’s Travel Plans Turn the Tide in Shrimp Dispute

by | Jul 11, 2024 |

Addressing the scope of a magistrate judge’s Article III authority, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated a judgment and remanded the case for a new trial because the magistrate judge performed non-ministerial acts without obtaining proper consent. PB Legacy, Inc v. Am. Mariculture, Inc., Case No. 22-12936 (11th Cir. June 18, 2024) (Pryor, C.J.; Brasher, J.) (Jordan, J., concurring).

PB Legacy sued American Mariculture for trade secret misappropriation and other claims after PB Legacy failed to timely remove its shrimp from Mariculture’s facility, which Mariculture then used to start a competing company. During the trial, the district judge instructed that all arguments had to conclude by a certain date because of a scheduled flight. Although arguments ended on time, the jury engaged in extensive deliberations. On the day of the district judge’s flight, he proposed that the magistrate judge receive the jury verdict in his absence. The parties agreed to this arrangement without objection. The jury deliberations continued for three more days. During that time, the magistrate judge not only received the verdict and polled the jury, but also responded to several jury questions and denied Mariculture’s request for verdict clarification. The jury found in favor of PB Legacy. Mariculture appealed, contesting the magistrate judge’s exercise of Article III authority.

The Eleventh Circuit found that the magistrate judge improperly exercised Article III authority without proper consent. The Court clarified when a magistrate judge may exercise Article III authority, noting that while a magistrate judge’s performance of ministerial acts (such as receiving a jury verdict and polling a jury) do not require party consent, non-ministerial acts (such as responding to jury questions) do.

The Court also described how party consent is properly obtained. To avoid potential prejudice, consent for a magistrate judge to exercise Article III authority should be sought outside the presence of both the district judge and magistrate judge. Parties usually provide consent through a joint or separately filed statement, and district and magistrate judges are informed of a party’s consent only once all parties have agreed. In limited circumstances, consent may be implied when the parties are given advanced notice of the magistrate judge’s proposed Article III authority, are made aware of the need to consent, and voluntarily appear to try the case before the magistrate judge.

Against that background, the Eleventh Circuit addressed whether the parties consented to the magistrate judge’s acts in the current case. The Court found that although the district judge had notified the parties that the magistrate judge would receive the verdict in his absence, this act was a ministerial act that the magistrate judge could already perform without consent. However, the district court neither sought nor obtained the parties’ express consent for the magistrate judge to also perform the non-ministerial acts of responding to jury questions and ruling on a party’s request to have the jury clarify the verdict. Implied consent was also lacking because the parties were not given notice of need for consent or their right [...]

Continue Reading



read more

E for Effort? PI Analysis in Trade Secret Suit Riddled With Errors

by | Jun 27, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the granting of a sweeping preliminary injunction (PI) in a trade secret suit against a competitor, finding that the district court’s analysis failed to consider potentially dispositive issues and the requirements of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co., Case No. 24-1137 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2024) (Lourie, Prost, Stark, JJ.) Among other things, the district court:

  • Failed to consider whether the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred.
  • Used an incorrect definition of “trade secret.”
  • Based its irreparable harm analysis on an unsubstantiated fear of a competitor’s potential acquisition of the defendant.
  • Failed to meaningfully assess the balance of harm and the public interest factors.

Insulet and EOFlow are medical device manufacturers that make insulin pump patches. Insulet began developing its OmniPod product in the early 2000s and launched next-generation models in 2007 and 2013. EOFlow began developing its own insulin pump product, the EOPatch, in 2011 and began work on its second-generation product in 2017. Around the time that EOFlow began developing its second-generation device, four Insulet employees joined EOFlow.

In early 2023, Medtronic allegedly started a diligence process to acquire EOFlow. Shortly thereafter, Insulet sued EOFlow for trade secret misappropriation, seeking an injunction to bar all technical communications between EOFlow and Medtronic. The district court granted Insulet’s request, finding that Insulet was likely to succeed on its trade secret claim because EOFlow had hired former Insulet employees who retained Insulet’s confidential documents, and Medtronic’s intended acquisition of EOFlow would cause irreparable harm to Insulet. The injunction broadly prevented EOFlow from “manufacturing, marketing, or selling any product that was designed, developed, or manufactured, in whole or in part, using or relying on the Trade Secrets of Insulet.”

EOFlow appealed the injunction. EOFlow argued that the district court failed to address whether Insulet’s claim was time-barred under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(d) of the DTSA and to consider factors relevant to Insulet’s likelihood of success or meaningfully assess the balance of harm and public interest factors.

The Federal Circuit first observed that the district court had expressed no opinion regarding EOFlow’s § 1836(d) statute of limitations (SoL) argument, even though Insulet’s compliance with the SoL was a material factor that would significantly impact Insulet’s likelihood of success. This alone constituted an abuse of discretion meriting reversal.

The Federal Circuit found that even if the district court had addressed the SoL, the injunction was not adequately supported. The Federal Circuit explained that the district court had improperly and broadly defined “trade secret” as “any and all Confidential Information of Insulet,” where “Confidential Information” was defined by the district court to mean any materials marked “confidential” as well as any CAD files, drawings or specifications. The Federal Circuit explained that the district court should have required Insulet to define the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets with particularity. Instead, the district court allowed Insulet to “advance a hazy grouping of information” and stated that “it would be unfair to require at [...]

Continue Reading



read more

“Common Sense” Governs Tribal Sovereign Immunity Under Federal Contracting Program

by | May 16, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s ruling, holding that waiver of sovereign immunity for claims related to a federal contracting program means the defendant, a sovereign Indian tribe, can be sued and that the district court failed to consider the valid and enforceable nature of the forum. AQuate II, LLC v. Jessica Tedrick Myers and Kituwah Global Gov’t Group, LLC, Case No. 22-12669 (11th Cir. May 1, 2024) (Grant, Abudu, Hull, JJ.)

AQuate II is a business organized under the authority of the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town. Kituwah Services is organized under the authority of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Both tribal entities compete for and perform federal contracts under the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development program, which was created to help qualifying small businesses that are owned/controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged” individuals/groups compete for federal procurement contracts. Jessica Myers, a former AQuate II employee, took a job as the director of administration for Kituwah and allegedly violated her confidentiality commitments by taking copies of contracts, proposals, personnel lists and other secret information. Myers also allegedly contacted her former colleagues at AQuate II to solicit information regarding bids for a federal contract and provided job offers to AQuate II employees contingent upon Kituwah winning the federal contract. AQuate II sued in federal district court, alleging that Myers breached her employment agreements and that she and Kituwah violated both the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 and the Alabama Trade Secrets Act. (18 U.S.C. § 1836; Ala. Code § 8-27-1 et seq.) AQuate II requested a preliminary injunction, and Kituwah and Myers moved to dismiss.

Enrollment in the 8(a) program requires qualifying businesses to agree to “sue and be sued” in US federal courts for “all matters relating to” the Small Business Administration, including its 8(a) program and related participation, loans and contract performance. (13 C.F.R. § 124.109(c)(1).) Kituwah invoked sovereign immunity and claimed it was not subject to suit in federal district court. AQuate II argued that Kituwah had waived its sovereign immunity with respect to claims relating to Kituwah’s participation in the 8(a) program. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that Kituwah had not waived sovereign immunity for the trade secrets claims because AQuate II’s lawsuit did not “relate to” participation in the 8(a) program. The district court dismissed the same claims against Myers, finding that Kituwah was a necessary and indispensable party under Rule 19. Lastly, the district court dismissed the remaining breach of contract claim against Myers under forum non conveniens, concluding that the dispute resolution policy required that the claim be resolved in the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town court. The district court denied AQuate II’s motion for reconsideration, and AQuate II appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded, noting that under 1998 Supreme Court precedent, Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Mfg. Techs., “an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit, or the tribe has waived its immunity.” [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Back in the USA: Seventh Circuit Lifts Sanctions, Anti-Suit Injunction Contempt

by | May 2, 2024 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stayed a district court’s contempt sanctions relating to an anti-suit injunction violation, finding that the adjudicated infringer had done all it could to withdraw from the other proceeding in China. Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Ltd., Case No. 24-1531 (7th Cir. Apr. 16, 2024) (Hamilton, Brennan, St. Eve., JJ.) (per curiam).

Motorola Solutions previously obtained a $500 million judgment against Hytera for trade secret misappropriation and infringement of copyrighted code used in Motorola’s two-way radio systems. Motorola subsequently brought contempt proceedings after Hytera launched a new line of two-way radio systems, asserting that the new radio systems also used the copyrighted code. As part of the contempt proceeding, the district court imposed an anti-suit injunction ordering Hytera to “refrain from further pursuing or enforcing in any way” a lawsuit that Hytera had filed in the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court in China seeking a declaratory judgment that the new line of radios did not infringe Motorola’s intellectual property.

After evidence emerged that Hytera continued to participate in the Chinese proceeding, the district court issued an order directing Hytera to withdraw from the Chinese proceeding. Just a few days later the district court issued an order finding that Hytera had violated the anti-suit injunction by continuing to participate in the Chinese proceeding and imposed contempt sanctions, including a worldwide suspension of Hytera’s sales of two-way radio products; a fine of $1 million per day; and worldwide notice of the sanctions and prohibitions to customers, distributors and others. A few days after the order issued, Hytera filed an appeal.

At the same time, Hytera filed a petition with the Chinese court seeking to withdraw the declaratory judgment action and seeking the return of all evidence from that court. Less than a week later, Motorola appeared before the Chinese court. Because of the anti-suit injunction, Hytera did not appear at the hearing. At the hearing, the Chinese court denied Hytera’s motion to withdraw. Later that same afternoon, the Chinese court summoned Hytera and thereafter issued a short order granting the motion to withdraw.

Despite the Chinese court’s decision to grant Hytera’s motion to withdraw, the district court did not lift the sanctions. The district court expressed concern about a scenario in which a written order “technically withdraws the action” but comes with “a whole series of other consequences that generates duplicative litigation . . . and thereby undermines the whole purpose of the anti-suit injunction and the subsequent contempt proceedings.” The district court also noted that Hytera had not yet produced a promised log of ex parte communications between it and the Chinese court, and thus the district court could not be sure that Hytera was not using the Chinese court’s ex parte procedure to push for a favorable written order behind closed doors. Under the pressure of the continued contempt sanctions, Hytera repeatedly asked the Chinese court to clarify the status and effect of the order granting its withdrawal.

On appeal before the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES