Recently Filed Cases

Syndicate content
United States v. Sazonov
April 13, 2017 | United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Former Susquehanna International Group Engineer Charged with Theft of Trading Code

Defendant Dmitry Sazonov ("Defendant" or "Sazonov"), age 44, was arrested on April 13, 2017, whereupon a criminal complaint was filed against him in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and federal prosecutors. The government alleges that Sazonov "attempted to steal valuable proprietary computer code that took his employer years to develop," according to Acting U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim. Sazonoz was employed for thirteen years by Susquehanna International Group ("Susquehanna"), a financial services firm headquartered in Pennsylvania with offices in Manhattan. Susquehanna's principal line of business is securities trading and other financial products. Sazonov allegedly attempted to steal "proprietary computer code for a trading platform" that Susquehanna developed. The Feds report that "the trading platform Sazonov worked on trades $300 million in options daily." The FBI's investigation revealed that "Sazonov allegedly took elaborate steps to conceal his attempted theft, including camouflaging pieces of source code within harmless-looking draft emails on his work computer." The criminal complaint alleges that Sazonov efforts to steal the code began in February 2017 when he learned his supervisor had resigned.

The Defendant is charged with one count of attempted theft of trade secrets, which carries a maximum sentence of ten years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. The charges contained in the complaint are merely accusations, and the Defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Complaint: http://src.bna.com/nVJ

Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc; Ottomotto LLC; Otto Trucking LLC
February 27, 2017 | United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Battle of Self-Driving Cars

Waymo LLC, a self-driving car startup under Alphabet (originally known as Google’s Self-Driving Car Project), filed a complaint in California’s Northern District accusing Uber of violating the Defense of Trade Secrets Act and the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, as well as patent infringement. Waymo alleges that a former Google employee, Anthony Levandowski, secretly downloaded 14,000 files of “highly confidential data” from Google’s hardware systems before resigning a month later and launching a self-driving truck startup called Otto. Uber acquired Otto in August 2016 and put Levandowski in charge of its self-driving efforts. Waymost alleges that Levandowski used the information from Google’s system to launch Otto.

The complaint very specifically names the ways in which Levandowski stole the data. The data revolves around a key piece of technology called LiDAR ("Light Detection and Ranging"), which uses high-frequency, high-power pulsing lasers to measure distances between one or more sensors and external objects to build a detailed map of the environment around the car. Waymo has invested millions in its own LiDAR hardware and alleges that Levandowski misappropriated this data in developing Otto and working for Uber.

Filed complaint: http://nyti.ms/2mMwBcA

OOO Brunswick Rail Mgt., et al. v. Sultanov, et al.
January 4, 2017 | Northern District of California
Court Grants Ex Parte Seizure Order In Part under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA)

Defendants Richard Sultanov (“Sultanov”) and Paul Ostling (“Ostling,” collectively, “Defendants”) are former employees of OOO Brunswick Rail Management (“BRM”), a Russian limited liability company. In the Complaint, filed on January 4, 2017, BRM and Brunswick Rail Group Limited (“BRL”) (collectively “Brunswick”) allege that both Sultanov and Ostling misappropriated trade secrets throughout November and December 2016 citing the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) 18 U.S.C. Section 1836 et. seq. as a basis for federal jurisdiction. On this same day, Brunswick filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) requesting seizure of Defendants' property containing Brunswick's trade secrets currently in Defendants' possession.

Brunswick alleges further that after observing Sultanov's behavior, which the court describes as “unusually secretive,” Brunswick reviewed his work email account and found that he had “sent several confidential documents to his personal email account without authorization; he then deleted the sent messages and emptied his trash folder.” In its ex parte application, Brunswick asserts that "Sultanov and Ostling have already disclosed and plan to continue to disclose the trade secrets to creditors in order to disadvantage Brunswick in its ongoing negotiations related to Brunswick’s debt restructuring." In reviewing Brunsick's ex parte application, the court found that the record reveals Sultanov was communicating by phone with Ostling (a former employee of Brunswick) and a new representative of one of Brunswick’s creditors, "whom Sultanov was explicitly prohibited from contacting." Brunswick's investigation also brought to light that Ostling received "unauthorized confidential materials at his personal email account (via his former personal assistant, who remained at Brunswick), which he then forwarded to the creditor’s representative and to Sultanov." Brunswick request return of its "company-issued mobile phone and laptop," but Sultanov has refused to comply.

In its decision, issued January 6, 2017, the court granted Brunwick's motion in part and denied in part. The court ordered Rackspace, Inc. and Google, Inc. to preserve all data in Defendants' email accounts. The court also directed Defendants to appear before the court to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued against them and "to bring the electronic devices issued to [Sultanov] by Brunswick, including mobile phones and laptops" to surrender to the custody of the court.

UPDATE:
In subsequent motion practice, the court considered Sultanov's motion to dismiss filed on March 9, 2017. First, Sultanov argued that the court lacked both general and specific personal jurisdiction over him. Second, Sultanov asserted that his use of gmail did not confer specific personal jurisdiction over him, that his data is not in California nor would it matter if it were, and Google's terms of service also do not confer personal jurisdiction over Sultanov. Finally, Sultanov argued that exercising specific personal jurisdiction over him is not reasonable because he is a Russian citizen living in Moscow, Russia.

On June 6, 2017, the court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss without leave to amend because Brunswick failed to make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction exists. The court examined a $13,000 deposit in Sultanov's California checking account from Ostling around the same time as his alleged misconduct. The court posited that the "timing raises questions about the nature of the payment and its connection to the events underlying Brunswick’s allegations." In spite of this, the court held that "to establish personal jurisdiction in California, Brunswick must show more than the fact that Sultanov received a payment at a bank account that is associated with an address in Monterey. Despite having had the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery— including discovery of Sultanov’s bank accounts and other financial information—Brunswick has not established that the claims in this case arise out of the payment from Ostling." Upon reaching its decision, the court directed the clerk to close to case.

Complaint: http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/cases/ooo-brunswick-rail-mgt-et-al-v-sultanov-et-al/filings/complaint
Seizure Order: http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/cases/ooo-brunswick-rail-mgt-et-al-v-sultanov-et-al/filings/ex-parte-seizure-order
Motion to Dismiss Order: http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/cases/ooo-brunswick-rail-mgt-et-al-v-sultanov-et-al/filings/motion-dismiss-order

Pfizer, Inc. v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission et al.
November 17, 2016 | Austin Division, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
Texas Agency Sued in Trade Secrets Lawsuit

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

America's Test Kitchen v. Christopher Kimball et al.
October 31, 2016 | Suffolk County Superior Court
America’s Test Kitchen Sues Former Host for Misappropriating Tasty Trade Secrets

America’s Test Kitchen Inc. (“Plaintiff”) owns multimedia publications and productions, including television programs such as America’s Test Kitchen, cooking magazines and books, and several websites. Plaintiff sued Christopher Kimball (“Defendant”), a celebrity chef and the former host of its TV shows. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misappropriated its trade secrets and breached his fiduciary duty to the company. Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on October 31, 2016.

Defendant left Plaintiff’s program in November 2015, and recently developed his own program called Christopher Kimball’s Milk Street. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant created his company using its image to attract new customers, and marketed his program as an enhanced version of America’s Test Kitchen. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant stole from its collection of recipes, TV show ideas, media contacts, and subscriber information. It seems Plaintiff and Defendant did not have a formal non-compete agreement in place.

Plaintiff is seeking damages against Defendant and a disgorgement of all profits that he has derived through the use of the trade secrets he allegedly misappropriated from America’s Test Kitchen. Plaintiff’s complaint also names Melissa Baldino (Defendant’s wife), Christine Gordon, and Deborah Broide as defendants, and claims that they aided and abetted Defendant’s breach of his fiduciary duties.

The case is America’s Test Kitchen, Inc., v. Christopher Kimball et al., 1684-cv-03325.

Plaintiff’s complaint can be found here: http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/cases/americas-test-kitchen-v-christopher-kimball-et-al/filings/america%E2%80%99s-test-kitchen-sues-former-h

Maxum Petroleum, Inc. v. Hiatt et al.
September 26, 2016 | United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
Oil Company Files Federal Lawsuit After Former Employee Takes Position at Competitor

Maxum Petroleum (“Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit in federal court for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and Connecticut’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The complaint alleges that defendant Stephen Hiatt (“Hiatt”), a former employee, wrongfully accepted a position with a competing company that would inevitably cause him to disclose insider knowledge about Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is an oil company. Stephen Hiatt worked as the Vice President of Sales for Plaintiff’s energy department for 25 years. According to Plaintiff’s complaint, Hiatt agreed not to take a position with a competitor that would require him to share information about Plaintiff’s pricing and customers. Hiatt stopped working for Plaintiff on August 31 and took a position with Chemoil, a competing company, last week. Plaintiff learned about Hiatt’s new position through email.

Plaintiff contends that by accepting the position at Chemoil, Hiatt misappropriated trade secrets under the DTSA, the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and brought claims for breach of contract and a violation of the Connecticut’s Uniform Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff filed the suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

A copy of Plaintiff's complaint can be found here:
http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/cases/maxum-petroleum-inc-v-hiatt-et-al/filings/oil-company-files-federal-lawsuit-after-former-emplo

Palantir Technologies, Inc. v. Marc Abramowitz
September 1, 2016 | Santa Clara County, Supreme Court of the State of California
Former Palantir Employee Sued for Misappropriating Trade Secrets

Palantir, a data analytics company headquartered in Palo Alto, California, filed a lawsuit on September 1, 2016 alleging Marc Abramowitz (“the defendant”), one of its early investors, stole trade secrets and used them for his own benefit. Palantir filed the complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of California in Santa Clara County. It alleges that the defendant used confidential information to file false claims with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in order to obtain patents.

Defendant was an early investor with Palantir who regularly discussed some of the company’s sensitive business and trade secrets with company executives. The complaint states that the defendant used his position in the company to steal trade secrets by deceiving senior executives. Furthermore, Palantir alleges that defendant had his lawyers demand access to confidential information pursuant to Palantir’s Investors’ Rights Agreement with the defendant. The complaint states that the defendant then misappropriated this information for his personal gain by filing three patents based on the ideas he stole from Palantir.

Palantir requests a declaratory judgment that the defendant has no right to access the information he demanded under the company’s Investors’ Rights Agreement. The complaint includes multiple claims, some of which include misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

A link to Palantir's complaint can be found here: http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/cases/palantir-technologies-inc-v-marc-abramowitz/filings/former-palantir-employee-sued-misappropria

Panera, LLC v. Michael R. Nettles and Papa John’s International, Inc.
July 19, 2016 | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Defend Trade Secrets Act Takes a Bite Out of Fast Food Tussle

Panera, LLC (“Plaintiff”) has filed a complaint against Papa John’s International, Inc. and Michael Nettles (“Defendants”) for misappropriation of Panera’s trade secrets and other confidential information. Plaintiff alleges misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act, as well as raises counts of breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations regarding a non-compete which Nettles had signed. Plaintiff seeks immediate injunctive relief against Defendants.

Plaintiff Panera is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Missouri. It serves made-to-order sandwiches, salads, soups, and other baked goods in its 2,000-plus branded stores across the United States and Canada. It considers its customer-facing technological innovations to be an integral part of its consumer appeal in a competitive market. Defendant corporation Papa John’s is also a Delaware company, but it is headquartered in Kentucky and—according to the complaint—likewise makes its “dough” products in a technology-driven, customer-centric environment. Co-defendant Michael Nettles recently moved from Missouri to Kentucky to begin work for Papa John’s. Previously, he had been Panera’s Vice President of Architecture in its Information Technology department from July 2012-July 2016, a position that allowed him access to Panera’s most sensitive and proprietary technologies.

Plaintiff alleges that Nettles misused or will misuse information including, but not limited to, Panera’s thought processes, visions, and schematics for its technology systems. Further, Plaintiff asserts Nettles has an intimate knowledge of Panera’s strategic plans for the next 2-4 years and that he is currently in violation of a non-compete agreement he (like all high-level executives at the company) signed in 2013, which prohibits him for working for a competitor company for a period of one year after ending his employment with Panera. According to the complaint, Nettles asked to be released from the non-compete when he was offered a job at Defendant company, but Panera’s CEO declined to do so. Instead, the CEO offered to help Nettles get a job with a company not in direct competition with Plaintiff. However, encouraged by Papa John’s—who Plaintiff asserts had actual knowledge of the strict non-compete—Nettles accepted the high-level position at Papa John’s. He then allegedly made copies of Panera’s sensitive information and stored them on his personal devices, where they remain.

Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to restrict Nettles from disclosing or further disclosing trade secrets and confidential information to Papa John’s. If Plaintiff is successful in asserting its breach of contract claims under contract theory and also as a matter of public policy, Nettles would be enjoined from beginning employment with Defendant corporation for a period of one year from July 1, 2016. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction after trial, prohibiting disclosure of trade secrets and requesting the return of any such information to Panera. Plaintiff asks that Defendants cover its reasonable costs and attorney’s fees.

The complaint can be found here: https://www.scribd.com/document/318937409/Panera-lawsuit-vs-Papa-John-s-...

Update: August 15, 2016
A federal judge ordered Michael Nettles to discontinue working at the Louisvlle-based pizza chain. According to the order, Nettles must cease and desist "advising, consulting, or working for Papa John's," either directly or indirectly. The order also restricts Papa John's from seeking advice, consulting or employing Nettles and requires Nettles to pay a $200,000 security bond.

Additionally, according to the judge's order, a third-party forensic analyst will analyze Nettles' personal devices including his personal laptop. Nettles and Papa John's have been ordered to pay half of the analyst's cost and Panera will cover the remaining half.

Adidas America, Inc. et al v. Skechers USA, inc.
July 11, 2016 | Oregon, U.S. District Court in Portland
Adidas Files Patent Infringement Suit Against Skechers

On July 11, 2016, Adidas filed suit against Skechers in the U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon for willful infringement of two patents related to Springblade, a shoe design intended to help propel runners move forward. Adidas accused Sketchers of developing its Mega Flex shoes as "takedowns" that copy the Springblade technology without the cost of creating it. Adidas is seeking an injunction against any infringement and triple damages.

This is Adidas' second lawsuit against Skechers in less than a year. Last September, Adidas filed suit against Skechers for illegally copying the design for its classic white Stan Smith tennis shoes. Adidas was awarded a preliminary injunction in February 2016 and it scheduled for a jury trial in May 2017.

The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,339,079 and 9,345,285, both issued in May 2016.

Updates to follow.

People v. Jimmy John’s Enterprises, LLC
June 8, 2016 | CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT
Illinois Attorney General Cracks Down On Overbroad Non-Competes

The Attorney General of the State of Illinois, Lisa Madigan, has filed a complaint on behalf of the People against Jimmy John’s Enterprises, LLC and Jimmy John’s Franchise, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) for the use of overly restrictive non-compete clauses as used against low-wage, at-will employees. The state seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as civil damages, for Defendants’ alleged restraint of free trade and employee mobility.

Defendants operate a national sandwich chain, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Illinois. They own eight Jimmy John's Sandwich Shops in Illinois, including all intellectual property associated with the stores and franchises. From approximately September 2007-April 2015, low-level employees signed a non-compete clause as a prerequisite to employment. Although the clause itself went through several iterations, it remained substantially the same. The non-compete clause applied to assistant store managers, delivery personnel, sandwich-makers, and other store employees, prohibiting them from working with an employer situated within two miles of any Jimmy John’s store, if that employer derived at least ten per cent of their revenue from certain categories of products (including “deli” sandwiches). This prohibition stretched for a period of two years after ending employment with Defendants.

The state believes Defendants’ actions were unreasonable and harmful, as these particular employees had limited access to trade secrets or other confidential information. Illinois alleges that Defendants’ conduct has resulted in a restraint of trade in the state, affecting not only Jimmy John’s employees but other Illinois businesses and the public at large. Illinois brings this action because Defendants have made no attempt to modify or rescind the non-compete.

The state requests that the Court declare the non-competes void as a matter of public policy and without adequate consideration as a matter of law. It also seeks an injunction to prevent Defendants from continuing with the non-compete clause. Finally, the state seeks restitution on behalf of Illinois consumers and businesses, a disgorgement of profits received by Defendants as a result of the alleged conduct, and a penalty of $50,000 per violation.

The complaint can be found here: https://will.illinois.edu/nfs/JimmyJohnsComplaintFILED.pdf

Syndicate content