Recent Decisions and Case Developments

On November 17, 2016 pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) sued Texas’s Health and Human Services Commission (“HHSC”) in federal court. Pfizer alleges that the HHSC misappropriated confidential information regarding its prices and rebate information for Texas Medicaid when it revealed the information to state lawmakers.

Pfizer claims the HHSC sent confidential detailed information regarding its drug prices and rebate protocol to two state senators. In its complaint, Pfizer argues this was a violation of 42 U.S.C. §1396r-8(b)(3)(D), which, in part, states that information disclosed by manufacturers or wholesalers is confidential, and cannot be disclosed a state agency. Furthermore, Pfizer alleges the HHSC violated a Texas law, which also prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information obtained by the HHSC regarding drug rebate negotiations or other related trade secrets. Pfizer also claims that the HHSC has refused to specifically disclose which company information it released to the senators. Pfizer expresses concern in its complaint that the pricing information released would give competitors an unfair advantage in bidding situations.

Pfizer seeks a declaratory judgment in its favor and injunctive relief to prevent further release of its confidential information.

The case is Pfizer, Inc. v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission et al.

Pfizer’s complaint can be found here:
http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/cases/pfizer-inc-v-texas-health-and-human-services-commission-et-al/filings/pfizer-inc-v-texas-healt

According to a ruling issued by the US International Trade Commission (ITC), Fitbit did not steal Jawbone's trade secrets, and the ITC will not revive Jawbone's efforts to seek an import ban on fitness-tracking devices by Fitbit for allegedly misappropriating trade secrets.

The trade secrets case between Jawbone and Fitbit began in July 2015 when Jawbone initially accused Fitbit of infringing six of its patents and of poaching its employees to use their knowledge of Jawbone's trade secrets. Jawbone hoped that the ITC would ban Fitbit from importing its products to the US from its overseas manufacturing partners. Fitbit manufactures its devices overseas and imports them to the US.

Administrative Law Judge Sandra Lord found in August 2016 that Fitbit had no violated the Tariff Act because "no party has been shown to have misappropriated any trade secret." Violating the Tariff Act would have given the commission the ability to block importation of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property. The ruling by the ITC in October 2016 confirms the previous ruling and is the full commission's third ruling in Fitbit's favor in the past five months.

A federal district court in Florida has ruled that in cases of continuous misappropriation where a plaintiff can establish that at least one occurrence took place after the effective date of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (May 11, 2016), that plaintiff is entitled to at least partially recover under the DTSA. Neither party raised the question of whether this butts against the notion that you cannot apply a statute retroactively.

In this case, Plaintiff Adams Arms, which specializes in military-grade rifles, alleges that Defendant Unified Weapon Systems, Inc. ("UWS") both improperly acquired and disclosed its trade secrets. Adams Arms says that its rifles’ unparalleled reliability is the result of certain mechanical processes, mixes of parts, and the vendors used to supply them. Plaintiff disclosed this information to Defendants because they had been working together to win a bid with the Peruvian military. They also granted a tour of their facility, and handed over pricing information. Prior to this exchange, in 2014, parties executed a "Mutual Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement," which was to be binding upon the companies and their representatives and officers.

However, relations between the parties soured when Defendant began locking Plaintiff out of meetings with the Peruvian client, and—Plaintiff alleges—attempted to sell to the client UWS rifles that were actually retooled Adams Arms rifles, following Plaintiff’s mechanics and designs.

Plaintiff Adams Arms seeks to recover under the DTSA, while Defendants believe the trade secrets misappropriation claim (Count 5 of the complaint) should be dismissed because the UTSA governs all incidents prior to May 11, 2016. The Court rejected Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Judge Hernandez Covington said that UWS signed a contract with the Peruvian military after May 11th, using the Adams Arms designs, specifications, and processes, which enables Plaintiff’s disclosure claim to advance in court. However, all trade secrets were acquired pre-DTSA, so Plaintiff’s misappropriated acquisition claims cannot be remedied under that statute.

Read the full case here: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Adams_Arms_LLC_v_Un...

Twentieth Century Fox (“Plaintiff”) has lodged a complaint against Netflix, Inc. (“Defendant”) in California state court, alleging that Defendant fraudulently and maliciously interfered with the Fixed-Term Employment Agreements Plaintiff had with two of its executive employees: Marcos Waltenberg (formerly Vice President, Promotions) and Tara Flynn (formerly Vice President, Creative). Those agreements were to terminate in 2016 and 2017, respectively, with an additional two-year option period at their initial expiration. Waltenberg joined Defendant Netflix’s payroll, however, in January 2016 and Flynn joined before her option period expired in August 2016.

Netflix is accused of “soliciting, recruiting, encouraging, and inducing” Fox employees to terminate their employment with Fox early. For their part, Fox claims that Netflix’s actions have resulted in irreparable injury to Fox’s ability to contract for a stable workforce (especially with regard to corporate planning), and to its business reputation and goodwill. Twentieth Century Fox seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as a permanent injunction enjoining Netflix from interfering with any of its Fixed-Term contracts.
It is worth noting that the agreements at issue in this case are not non-competes.

California has taken the rare stance of voiding all non-compete agreements. California Business and Professions Code section 16600 provides that, “[e]xcept as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is to that extent void.” This puts employers in the position of creating a workaround to employee retention and market advantage. In California, that is often accomplished through Fixed-Term Employment Agreements.

Check back for updates, and read the complaint here: https://www.scribd.com/document/324263613/Complaint-9-16