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

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

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

Fifth Circuit Rejects Recruiter’s Trade Secret Misappropriation and Contract Defenses

by | Apr 18, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision finding trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract based on a recruiter’s improper use of confidential client information. Counsel Holdings, Incorporated v. Jowers, Case No. 22-50936 (5th Cir. Apr. 1, 2024) (King, Ho, Engelhardt, JJ.) (per curiam).

In April 2006, Evan Jowers was hired by MWK (whose successor is Counsel Holdings) as a legal recruiter. Jowers signed an employment agreement with noncompete and nonsolicitation covenants. During his employment, Jowers relocated to Hong Kong, where he began recruiting for law firms in Asia. Jowers resigned from MWK in December 2006, after which he began working for another recruiting firm in Hong Kong called Legis Ventures.

MWK sued Jowers for trade secret misappropriation and breach of the restrictive covenants in the employment contract. MWK alleged that while Jowers was still employed with MWK, he submitted its candidates for employment through Legis Ventures. After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of MWK on both claims. As to the trade secret claim, the district court concluded that MWK’s customers’ “names, their clients, how much their practices were worth, their language skills, their goals for switching firms, and their law school records” constituted trade secrets. As for the contract claim, the district court found that enforcement of the restrictive covenants was justified because MWK’s client information was a legitimate business interest. Jowers appealed.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed. As to the trade secret claim, the Court explained that Jowers’s employment agreement explicitly required confidentiality and that MWK’s customers requested that Jowers keep their information secret. Despite the restrictions, Jowers divulged MWK’s customer information to others, including a competing recruitment firm, without authorization. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court’s determination that Jowers’s actions constituted trade secret misappropriation.

As to the breach of contract claim, Jowers argued that MWK lacked a “legitimate business interest.” The Fifth Circuit found no clear error with the district court’s determination that MWK’s client information was a legitimate business interest that justified enforcement of the restrictive covenant.



read more

Unfair Play: Unjust Enrichment for Copying and Using Non-Trade-Secret Spreadsheet

by | Nov 9, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim, finding that unjust enrichment claims do not necessarily rise or fall with trade secret misappropriation claims and may be advanced where there is a dispute as to whether a contract’s scope covers the parties’ disagreement. Pauwels v. Deloitte LLP, Case No. 22-21 (2d Cir. Oct. 6, 2023) (Sacks, Robinson, JJ.) (Jacobs, J., dissenting in part).

Andre Pauwels is a contractor who was retained without written agreement by The Bank of New York Mellon and its parent company (collectively, BNYM) to work on investment valuation. In 2014, while working for BNYM, Pauwels developed the “Pauwels Model” for valuation, which was implemented in Excel spreadsheets. Pauwels typically would send BNYM only the outputs from the Pauwels Model. According to Pauwels, the Pauwels Model and spreadsheets were confidential and proprietary, although the spreadsheets were not password-protected, encrypted or labeled confidential, and Pauwels sometimes shared the spreadsheets with BNYM.

In 2016, BNYM engaged Deloitte and related entities (collectively, Deloitte) to take over Pauwels’s duties. Pauwels never authorized BNYM to share the Pauwels Model spreadsheets with Deloitte, and BNYM assured Pauwels that Deloitte was not using those spreadsheets. In April 2018, Pauwels discovered that BNYM had given Deloitte the spreadsheets and that Deloitte had copied the Pauwels Model. BNYM terminated its relationship with Pauwels in May 2018.

In March 2019, Pauwels sued BNYM and Deloitte for trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition and unjust enrichment and further alleged that BNYM committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. After BNYM and Deloitte moved to dismiss, the district court granted the motion in relevant part. The district court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as duplicative of the trade secret misappropriation claim, citing the 2009 Second Circuit case Faiveley Transp. Malmo v. Wabtec for the proposition that “where an unfair competition claim, and a misappropriation claim arise from the same factual predicate . . . the two claims generally rise or fall together.” The district court dismissed the remainder of the claims for failure to plausibly allege the existence of trade secrets, that BNYM and Deloitte had “misappropriated” anything, or that Pauwels suffered damages. Pauwels appealed.

The Second Circuit reversed the dismissal of Pauwels’s unjust enrichment claim as to BNYM. Initially, the Court found that Pauwels’s unjust enrichment claim was not duplicative of his trade secret misappropriation claim, distinguishing Faiveley Transp. and explaining that misappropriation is not an element of unjust enrichment claims. The Court rejected BNYM’s argument that Pauwels’s unjust enrichment claim was precluded by the contract between the parties. The Court found that Pauwels could maintain his claim because there was “a bona fide dispute . . . whether the scope of an existing contract covers the disagreement between the parties.” According to Pauwels, he was engaged and paid for his advice and expertise only, meaning that BNYM had no right to benefit from the Pauwels Model spreadsheets by sharing them with Deloitte. According to BNYM, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Fifth Chances: Ignoring Court’s Warning Leads to Terminal Sanctions

by | Nov 9, 2023 |

In an appeal from litigation-ending sanctions, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that misconduct in the face of judicial warnings supports the use of litigation-ending sanctions and that evidence a party forgot about does not count as “new” evidence when remembered for the purpose of a motion for reconsideration. Calsep A/S v. Ashish Dabral, Case No. 22-20440 (5th Cir. Oct. 11, 2023) (Clement, Elrod, Willett, JJ.)

Insights Reservoir Consulting (IRC), a company owned by Ashish Dabral, was hired to make a computer program that assesses oil-well efficiency. To develop that software, Dabral turned to his college friend who worked at Calsep A/S, a software company that designs and sells oil-well assessment software. Dabral hired his friend away from Calsep, and IRC subsequently developed and sold its own oil-well efficiency software.

Surprised at the sudden appearance of a competitor, Calsep investigated and found that IRC had recently hired one of its former employees. Calsep conducted an internal audit and found that its former employee had absconded with trade secrets just before leaving. Calsep sued Dabral and IRC.

In discovery, Calsep requested the complete development history of IRC’s new software. Dabral resisted such disclosure as “overbroad,” but the district court ordered production of the requested materials. Shortly thereafter, the district court further entered an order specifically enjoining the parties from the “destr[uction] of any potentially relevant evidence, including electronically stored information.”

In response to the discovery request, Dabral only produced portions of the development history, and its produced history included sections that were either incomplete or manipulated. In response, Calsep filed another motion to compel. The district court ordered Dabral to “come clean” and comply “voluntarily” before the court resorted to sanctions. Dabral represented that the entire history had been produced and that it was missing only portions deleted before the lawsuit.

The district court held an evidentiary hearing, and Dabral admitted that many of the deletions actually occurred during the lawsuit. The district court levied terminal sanctions based on Dabral’s violation of four separate court orders and serial discovery misconduct. Seven months later, Dabral filed a motion for reconsideration based on new information he found in his storage unit in India. The district court denied the motion. Dabral appealed both the sanctions ruling and the denial of the motion for reconsideration.

The Fifth Circuit first analyzed the sanctions. It limited its analysis to sanctions under Rule 37, which (in the Fifth Circuit) requires four specific findings before terminal sanctions can be levied:

  1. The violation was willful or bad faith.
  2. The client was responsible.
  3. The violation caused substantial prejudice.
  4. A lesser sanction would not have the desired deterrent effect.

The Fifth Circuit held that Dabral’s pattern of conduct supported a finding of bad faith. Dabral admittedly deleted evidence, delayed discovery and ignored several court orders. And when the district court gave him a last chance to “come clean,” he instead deleted more data and made a false representation.

The Fifth Circuit also held that Dabral’s conduct [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Head East: Contract Disputes Act Claims Must Be Filed in DC

by | Sep 28, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) “impliedly forbids” federal contractors from bringing most trade secret misappropriation claims against federal agencies in district court. Instead, the CDA requires contractors to bring such claims before the US Court of Federal Claims or the agency board of contract appeals, both of which are located in Washington, DC. United Aeronautical Corp. v. United States Air Force, Case No. 21-56377 (9th Cir. Sept. 7, 2023) (Smith, Lee, JJ.) (Collins, JJ., dissenting).

United Aeronautical Corporation (Aero) develops firefighting products, including the Mobile Airborne Fire Fighting System for use in aerial firefighting. The US Forest Service contracted with Aero to develop an updated aerial system to assist the agency in fighting fires. The ensuing prototype necessarily incorporated significant amounts of Aero’s intellectual property. To protect that information, Aero and the Forest Service executed a Data Rights Agreement (DRA) providing that “the technical data produced . . . or used or related” to developing the prototype “shall remain the property of [Aero],” but specifying that the Forest Service “shall have unlimited rights to view and use the data required for the continued use and operation of the” prototype. The Forest Service proceeded to share Aero’s data with the Air Force, which developed an upgraded aerial firefighting system it marketed internationally.

Aero sued the Air Force for misappropriating its trade secret information. Procedurally, Aero brought its claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), seeking a declaration that the Air Force’s actions violated the Trade Secrets Act and federal procurement law, and an injunction prohibiting any further use of that data to develop competing products. Although the Air Force believed it was permitted to use Aero’s trade secrets pursuant to the DRA, it also argued that Aero’s complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court agreed, concluding that the CDA vests exclusive jurisdiction over federal-contractor disputes with the Court of Federal Claims where, as here, the dispute is related to a procurement contract. Aero appealed.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Aero argued that the APA permits any “person suffering legal wrong[s] because of agency action” to seek redress in a federal district court and that the Air Force’s misappropriation of Aero’s trade secret information—in violation of the Trade Secrets Act—was exactly that. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, concluding that the nature of Aero’s claims (misappropriation, not breach of contract) and the relief it sought (an injunction, not damages or specific performance) mattered little. What mattered was the existence of a contract between the contractor and an agency that “related to” the intellectual property at issue.

Under the APA, a private party cannot bring suit when its claims are “impliedly forbidden” by a different statute that vests exclusive jurisdiction with another tribunal. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the CDA “impliedly forb[ade]” Aero’s claims since it was enacted to create a dispute resolution system for claims concerning federal procurement contracts, vesting exclusive jurisdiction of these disputes with [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Noncompulsory Counterclaims Don’t Confer Appellate Jurisdiction

by | Aug 17, 2023 | , ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that it does not have appellate jurisdiction to review noncompulsory patent counterclaims in a case otherwise unrelated to the originally asserted patents. Teradata Corp. v. SAP SE, Case No. 22-1286 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2023) (nonprecedential) (Lourie, Taranto, Hughes, JJ.)

Teradata makes and sells data warehouse systems and services. SAP develops and sells software. The two companies began collaborating while SAP was simultaneously developing its own database (HANA) and component software. SAP eventually informed Teradata that it would stop selling certain Teradata products. Teradata sued SAP, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets on the theory that SAP used Teradata’s proprietary information to create HANA. Teradata also alleged various antitrust violations, arguing that SAP “illegally tied” HANA and HANA’s supporting software. In response, SAP filed counterclaims against Teradata for allegedly infringing SAP patents related to database organization and optimization. On Teradata’s motion, the district court agreed to sever one of the four patent infringement claims but allowed the others to proceed. The district court reasoned that Teradata’s claims and SAP’s counterclaims all arose from “the same transaction or occurrence,” namely SAP’s development of HANA.

The district court granted summary judgment to SAP on Teradata’s antitrust and technical trade secret claims and stayed proceedings on Teradata’s business trade secret claim and to Teradata on SAP’s patent counterclaims. Teradata appealed to the Federal Circuit.

SAP moved to transfer the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Federal Circuit denied the motion but instructed the parties to address the jurisdictional issue in the merits brief. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) grants the Federal Circuit exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final decisions in which a party claims or asserts a compulsory counterclaim related to patents. As it relates to this case, the issue was whether SAP’s patent infringement counterclaims were “compulsory,” meaning SAP would be unable to later sue on these patent infringement allegations “if it did not press them in this action.”

The Federal Circuit began by looking at Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 13(a), which states that a counterclaim is “compulsory” if it arises from the same transaction or occurrence as a plaintiff’s claim. The Court explained that it uses three tests to determine whether the transaction or occurrence is sufficiently related between the claim and counterclaim:

  1. Whether the legal and factual issues are substantially the same
  2. Whether the evidence will be substantially the same
  3. Whether there is “a logical relationship between the claim and the counterclaim.”

Taken together, these tests essentially ask if there is substantial overlap between what the plaintiff and the defendant must establish to succeed on the claim and counterclaim, respectively.

The Federal Circuit found that the first two tests clearly weighed against SAP’s counterclaim being compulsory. While an understanding of the accused products and alleged trade secrets would be necessary for both the claim and the counterclaim, “same-field overlap” is not enough to make the issues or necessary evidence “substantially the same.”

As to the third test, the Federal Circuit found [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES