IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Results for ""
Subscribe to Results for ""'s Posts

Later-Filed, Earlier-Expiring Patent Not an ODP Reference

by | Aug 29, 2024 |

Addressing invalidity due to obvious-type double patenting (ODP) based on later-filed-related patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s application of In re Cellect (Fed. Cir. 2023) and held that the later-filed, earlier-expiring continuation patents were not available as ODP references against the earlier-filed, later-expiring patent. Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Labs Private Ltd., Case No. 24-1061 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2024) (Lourie, Dyk, Reyna JJ.)

In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a new drug application for a drug sold by Allergan to treat the symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. In 2019, Sun Pharma filed an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) seeking to market a generic version of the drug. Allergan then sued Sun Pharma and MSN Labs for infringement of four patents related to the drug. One of the patents, which claims a compound of the drug, had been granted almost three years of patent term adjustment (PTA) and was followed by two more patents from continuation applications in the same patent family. The other three patents all claimed tablet forms of the drug. The claims of one of the patents recited that a glidant was optional while the claims of the other two patents did not require a glidant at all.

The US District Court for the District of Delaware held a three-day bench trial and concluded that the asserted claim of the compound patent was invalid under the ODP doctrine and that the claims of the three tablet patents were invalid for lack of written description. On the issue of ODP, the district court found Allergan’s “first-filed, first-issued” distinction “immaterial.” The district court stated that “[w]hen analyzing ODP, a court compares patent expiration dates, rather than filing or issuance dates.” Allergan appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed on both issues. The Court held that the claims of the later-filed, earlier-expiring continuation patents were not available as ODP references against the first patent because the purpose of the ODP doctrine is to prevent patentees from obtaining a second patent to effectively extend the life of the first patent. The Federal Circuit explained that the district court misread Cellect as binding it to solely consider expiration dates in the ODP analysis. The Court explained that Cellect only controls to the extent that it requires a court to consider the later-filed patent’s expiration date (i.e., the expiration date after the addition of PTA) in its ODP analysis, not the expiration date that it would have shared with the reference patents in the absence of a PTA award. The panel majority emphasized that it does not follow that the later-filed patent must be invalidated by the earlier-filed reference patents simply because it expires later. The majority noted that “Cellect does not address, let alone resolve, any variation of the question presented here – namely, under what circumstances can a claim properly serve as an ODP reference – and therefore has little to say on the precise issue before us.”

The Federal Circuit also [...]

Continue Reading



read more

It’s All Grecco to Me: No “Sophisticated Plaintiff” Exception to Discovery Rule

by | Aug 29, 2024 |

In a case of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that there is no “sophisticated plaintiff” exception to the Copyright Act’s discovery rule, which provides that a copyright claim only accrues upon the copyright owner’s discovery of the infringement or when the copyright owner (in the exercise of due diligence) should have discovered the infringement. Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. RADesign, Inc., Case No. 23-1078 (2d Cir. Aug. 16, 2024) (Wesley, Chin, Lee, JJ.)

Michael Grecco Productions (MGP) is a photography studio and business owned by commercial photographer Michael Grecco, who presents himself as an industry leader in copyright registration and enforcement. This case arose in the context of Grecco’s January 2017 photos of a model wearing shoes designed by Ruthie Davis. The photos were published in a magazine in August 2017. MGP claimed that Davis republished at least two of these photos on her brand’s website and social media platforms without a license. In its complaint, MGP alleged that Davis’s use of the photos began on August 16, 2017, but that MGP did not discover this infringement until February 8, 2021. On October 12, 2021 (more than four years after the infringement began but less than one year after its discovery), MGP filed suit against Davis alleging copyright infringement. MGP’s complaint also pled facts describing Grecco’s “efforts to educate photographers concerning the benefits of copyright registration” and how Grecco himself “spends time and money to actively search for hard-to-detect infringements, and how he enforces his rights under the Copyright Act.”

Davis moved to dismiss the suit as time-barred, arguing that the complaint was deficient on its face based on the Copyright Act’s three-year limitations period. Purporting to apply the governing “discovery rule,” the district court found that MGP’s “relative sophistication as an experienced litigator in identifying and bringing causes of action for unauthorized uses of Grecco’s copyrighted works leads to the conclusion that it should have discovered, with the exercise of due diligence,” the alleged infringement within the statute’s three-year limitations period. Based on this rationale, the district court granted Davis’s motion to dismiss. MGP appealed.

Reviewing the district court’s ruling de novo, the Second Circuit found that the district court erred as a matter of law in concluding that MGP’s complaint was barred by the three-year limitations period.

The Second Circuit explained that it (and 10 other circuit courts) had already held that in enacting the Copyright Act, Congress intended to employ “the discovery rule” as the measure of when a claim for infringement accrues. Under this rule, a claim for copyright infringement accrues when a diligent plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the infringement. This timing is in contrast to “the injury rule,” under which the claim would accrue when the infringement in-fact occurred. As the Court explained, the discovery rule is not an equitable tolling or estoppel doctrine available to some “worthy” plaintiffs but not others. Rather, it is the rule used to determine when a cognizable claim for copyright [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Blurred Vision: Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Standing

by | Aug 29, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent challenger’s appeal in an inter partes review (IPR) because the challenger could not meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc., Case No. 23-1227 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2024) (Moore, Taranto, JJ.; Checchi, Dist. J, sitting by designation).

Viavi Solutions owns a patent directed to optical filters that include layers of hydrogenated silicon and to sensor systems comprising such optical filters. Platinum Optics Technology (PTOT) petitioned for IPR. The Patent Trial & Appeal Board found that PTOT had failed to establish that the challenged claims were unpatentable. PTOT appealed.

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that PTOT did not have Article III standing. The Court explained that while Article III standing is not required to appear before an administrative agency (such as the US Patent & Trademark Office), such standing is required once a party seeks judicial review in an Article III federal court. PTOT argued it had standing because of potential infringement liability due to its continued distribution of a product previously accused of infringing the patent and its development of new models of the previously accused product. The Court rejected both arguments.

First, PTOT asserted that it suffered an injury in fact because there was a likelihood that Viavi would sue again. PTOT relied on a letter from Viavi stating that it did not believe PTOT could fulfill its supply agreements with noninfringing products. The Federal Circuit disagreed with PTOT’s assertion, concluding that mere speculation about the possibility of suit, without more, is insufficient to confer Article III standing. Moreover, the Court noted that Viavi’s letter was sent prior to the patent infringement suits, which were dismissed with prejudice. Thus, the Court found that PTOT had not established an injury in fact based on potential infringement liability due to its continued distribution of a previously accused product.

Second, PTOT asserted that it suffered an injury in fact based on its development of new models of the previously accused product. PTOT’s argument was supported by a declaration from a Deputy Director of Operation Management at PTOT and the same letter from Viavi threatening future suit. The Federal Circuit did not find the declaration testimony compelling. It explained that the declaration, which generally alleged that PTOT continued to develop new models of the previously accused product, did not identify any specific concrete plans for PTOT to develop a product that might implicate the patent. The declaration did not explain the particulars of these new models or how the models might relate to the patent. The Court found that the declaration was insufficient to establish that PTOT’s development activities created a substantial risk of infringement or were likely to cause Viavi to assert infringement. The Court noted that the letter from Viavi did not specifically address models in development or foreclose PTOT’s ability to develop a noninfringing product.

Thus, the Federal Circuit concluded that PTOT failed to establish an injury [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Well-Pleaded Factual Allegations Must Be Taken as True When Considering Motion to Dismiss

by | Aug 29, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in dismissing a trademark infringement matter under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, ruled that a district court “erroneously assumed the veracity” of the defendants’ assertions over the “well-pleaded factual allegations” in the plaintiff’s complaint. Molzan v. Bellagreen Holdings, LLC, Case No. 23-20492 (5th Cir. Aug. 12, 2024) (Davis, Southwick, Duncan, JJ.)

In 2008, Houston-based chef Bruce Molzan and two partners began the first of what would become a group of five Ruggles Green restaurants. In 2016, as part of a sale of the restaurants, Molzan licensed his Ruggles Green trademarks to Bellagreen Holdings and related entities (collectively, Bellagreen) and transferred the rugglesgreen.com domain name to Bellagreen. Following the sale, Bellagreen changed the name of the restaurants from Ruggles Green to Bellagreen.

Molzan filed a complaint against Bellagreen alleging federal and state trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, trademark dilution, breach of a 2018 settlement agreement in which Bellagreen agreed to cease using the Ruggles Green trademark, and unjust enrichment. Molzan alleged that he had been unable to substantially reduce the internet association of the Bellagreen restaurants with him or his Ruggles Green trademark, even after a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceeding (a private, binding arbitration proceeding to resolve domain name disputes) ruled in Molzan’s favor. Although Bellagreen deleted references to Ruggles Green from its websites, the “knowledge panels” for Bellagreen continued to cause confusion in Google searches and Google Map searches for Ruggles, Ruggles Green, and Ruggles Black, even after Molzan requested that Google correct the information. Searches for Ruggles on Google Maps and other online maps as well as Houston First Corporation’s website resulted in results for Bellagreen restaurants, something Molzan alleged would have happened only with the approval and direction of Bellagreen.

The district court granted Bellagreen’s motion under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and denied Molzan leave to file a second amended complaint. In granting Bellagreen’s motion to dismiss, the district court determined that Molzan did not allege any facts explaining why Bellagreen would have a connection to any of the third-party websites or their users. Molzan appealed.

The Fifth Circuit, reviewing the district court’s judgment de novo by accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, reversed the dismissals of Molzan’s federal and state trademark infringement claims, Molzan’s federal and state false advertising and unfair competition claims, and state (but not federal) trademark dilution claim. Because Molzan’s unjust enrichment claim relied on his underlying trademark infringement and unfair competition claims, the Court reversed the dismissal of this claim as well. The Court vacated the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of additional defendants involved in the website design and internet promotion for Bellagreen because the district court erred in ruling on the merits of Molzan’s claims against them prior to ruling on personal jurisdiction. The Court also vacated the district court’s order denying Molzan leave to amend his complaint.

The Fifth Circuit [...]

Continue Reading



read more

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

Recipe for Rejection: Trademark Application Burnt by Specimen Flaws

by | Aug 22, 2024 |

The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board issued a precedential decision affirming a refusal to register a mark because there was no direct association between the specimen and the applied-for services. In re Gail Weiss, Serial No. 88621608 (July 31, 2024, TTAB) (Cataldo, Goodman, Pologeorgis, ATJ)

Gail Weiss applied to register the mark GABBY’S TABLE on the Principal Register for “computerized online retail store services in the field of food, cooking utensils, cookware, culinary arts cookbooks, magazines, and videos, and lifestyle books, magazines, and videos.” Weiss submitted a specimen of use that consisted of “website marketing and advertising.” The Examining Attorney refused registration on the grounds that the specimen failed to show the mark in use in commerce in connection with the identified services. The Examining Attorney argued that the specimen only showed a list of items recommended for purchase, but the website did not offer the consumer retail store services to purchase the goods. Instead, the website included a “buy now” button that redirected customers to third-party websites that offered to retain store services to consumers. Weiss appealed.

The issue before the Board was whether the specimen demonstrated a direct association between the GABBY’S TABLE mark and the online retail store services identified in the application. The Board found that the specimen did not meet this requirement as it only provided referrals to third-party websites where the products could be purchased. The Board also noted that the specimen lacked the essential elements of online retail store services, such as a virtual shopping cart, pricing, shipping information or any other indicia of online retail store services. The Board also found that the third-party stores provided commissions to affiliate websites like those in the specimen but did not constitute providing online retail store services. The Board therefore affirmed the refusal to register.

Practice Note: This decision highlights the necessity for applicants to provide specimens that demonstrate the use of the mark in connection with the identified services.



read more

Due Diligence Deficit Sinks Fraud Claims in Trademark Battle

by | Aug 22, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an independent action asserting “fraud on the court” based on the finding that the alleged fraud on the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) should have been uncovered by the exercise of due diligence in a prior action. Marco Destin Inc. v. Levy et al., Case No. 23-1330 (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2024) (Jacobs, Sack, Sullivan, JJ.)

In 2007, L&L Wings filed a lawsuit against Marco Destin and related entities (collectively, Marco Destin) in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting claims of breach of contract and trademark infringement related to Marco Destin’s unauthorized use of L&L’s unregistered trademark WINGS on beach apparel. Although L&L and Marco Destin entered into an allegedly valid temporary licensing agreement in 1998, L&L alleged that Marco Destin continued to use the mark after the agreement expired in 2006. Post-discovery, L&L revealed a recent trademark registration for the WINGS mark, causing L&L and Marco Destin to enter a stipulated order of settlement and dismissal in 2011. Marco Destin paid L&L $3.5 million, ceased using the WINGS mark, and agreed to never bring an action based on the WINGS mark or the 1998 temporary licensing agreement.

More than a decade later, Marco Destin sued L&L again in the Southern District of New York for “fraud on the court” and “fraud” and demanded vacatur, sanctions and damages due to key facts revealed in a separate unrelated Eastern District of North Carolina action. In relevant part, it was discovered that L&L was not the owner of the WINGS mark. Rather, an entity named Shepard Morrow owned the WINGS mark and licensed it to L&L for a brief period in the 1990s. L&L stopped paying the required licensing fees to Shepard Morrow and improperly licensed the unregistered WINGS mark to other entities (including Marco Destin). As a result, the Eastern District of North Carolina granted sanctions against L&L for failing to disclose Shepard Morrow’s trademark registration and license agreement, and L&L’s WINGS mark registration was cancelled as a consequence of L&L’s false representations to the PTO. L&L moved to dismiss Marco Destin’s New York complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the “fraud on the court” claim was an independent action for relief from a judgment under Rule 60(d)(3) and Marco Destin had a reasonable opportunity to discover L&L’s false representations during the initial litigation. Marco Destin appealed.

The Second Circuit affirmed, reviewing the dismissal of an independent action for fraud on the court under FRCP 60(d)(3) for abuse of discretion. A party challenging a judgment may file either a timely motion within a fixed time window – one year under FRCP 60(b)(3) – or an independent action any time after that pursuant to FRCP 60(d)(3). Independent actions require a more demanding showing of fraud (such as fraud on the court itself) than a timely motion, and generally claimants seeking equitable relief through independent [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Patent by Secret Process: Perils of Pre-Patent Profiting

by | Aug 22, 2024 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) determination that the asserted process patents were invalid under the America Invents Act (AIA) because products made using the patented process were sold more than one year before the patents’ effective filing dates. Celanese International Corporation, et al. v. International Trade Commission, Case No. 22-1827 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2024) (Reyna, Mayer, Cunningham, JJ.)

Celanese owns patents that cover a process for making the artificial sweetener acesulfame potassium (Ace-K). It was undisputed that Celanese’s patented process was in secret use in Europe and that Ace-K produced using this process had been sold in the United States before the patents’ effective filing dates. Under pre-AIA caselaw, such sales of products made using a secret process before the critical date would trigger the on-sale bar and invalidate any later-sought patent claims on that process. However, because Celanese’s patents had effective filing dates after March 15, 2013, the AIA rules applied. Thus, the case hinged on whether the AIA altered this rule.

In 2019, in Helsinn v. Teva, the Supreme Court addressed similar facts and confirmed that the Federal Circuit’s pre-AIA “on sale” case law, which established that “secret sales” could invalidate a patent, still applied. In Helsinn, the patentee had obtained a patent related to a fixed dose of palonosetron. Prior to the critical date, the patentee entered into a supply and purchase agreement with a third party that covered this same fixed dose of palonosetron. The Supreme Court concluded that Congress, by reenacting similar language in the AIA concerning the on-sale bar, appeared to have adopted the Federal Circuit’s pre-AIA interpretation of the on-sale bar. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that, consistent with Federal Circuit pre-AIA precedent, an inventor’s prior sale of an invention to a third party can qualify as invalidating prior art even if the third party is obligated to keep the invention confidential.

However, unlike in Helsinn, where the claimed invention was the very subject of the commercial sale at issue, Celanese’s patents covered the secret process used to make Ace-K, and it was only the resulting Ace-K that was the subject of commercial sale – not the patented process itself. Although this distinction would not alter the outcome under pre-AIA law, Celanese averred that the AIA had revised the rules for this specific situation. To support its theory, Celanese referenced, among other things, the AIA’s use of the phrase “claimed invention” as opposed to simply “invention” as recited in pre-AIA discussion of the on-sale bar. According to Celanese, this change implied that the invention specifically “claimed” must be on sale to qualify as invalidating prior art.

The ITC rejected Celanese’s argument, concluding that the AIA did not alter the pre-AIA rule that “a patentee’s sale of an unpatented product made according to a secret method triggers the on-sale bar to patentability.” Accordingly, the ITC found that Celanese’s patents were invalid because Celanese sold Ace-K made using its secret process more [...]

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

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES