Recently Filed Cases

In a complaint filed mid-January 2013 in Oregon Federal District Court, Oregon company Reser’s Fine Foods Inc. (Reser) claimed former corporate partner Bob Evans Farms (BEF) misappropriated Reser trade secret baking techniques. The law suit comes in the wake of the two companies’ split last year, and BEF’s subsequent development and market for sale of a competing line of pre-made meal side dishes. According to the complaint, Reser and BEF had a business partnership since the mid 1990’s, in which Reser sold private label food products for BEF to re-sell. Reser alleges that through this relationship, BEF was able to access confidential information of Reser innovative product lines, processing of products, packaging techniques, market research and analysis. The Reser allegations include counts of trade secret misappropriation, breach of non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, and conversion under Ohio and Oregon state law. The suit was accompanied by an application by Reser for a protective order, granted January 18, 2013, and Reser’s motion for a preliminary injunction against BEF filed the same day.

Reser is Oregon’s 6th largest company, having prepared refrigerated food since the 1950’s, selling their products locally and nationally to restaurants and supermarkets. In part of their seventeen-year business relationship, Reser and BEF parties executed a Mutual Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement in January 2008, forbidding BEF from using Reser proprietary information to make and sell imitation or comparable products. The agreement terms applied to both parties and outlined a mutual information sharing arrangement “enabling Reser and BEF to freely engage in discussions and information sharing to benefit their mutual business interests and relationship on the condition that such information and technology be kept confidential and not be used except as provided” (Complaint, 8). The agreement also made specific reference to “recipes and formulas” as potential proprietary information contemplated under the mutual agreement. Accordingly, the crux of Reser allegations stem from a proprietary and innovative “Baked process,” to which BEF gained access through this mutual relationship. Reser contends that the “Baked process” is innovative and uniquely creates refrigerated food items with a crunchy, caramelized, browned top layer over a creamy bottom layer when reheated. When the Reser-BEF business relationship dissipated in August 2012, Reser notified BEF it would no longer accept orders for BEF side-dishes, but instead purchased the “Kettle Creations” company to produce similar food items. After this acquisition, Reser claims that BEF continued to manufacture and sell its own side-dishes, using the same UPC codes that were used for Reser products. For Reser, this act is significant because UPC codes are product and ingredient-sensitive and cannot be changed without notification to the retailer, demonstrating that the new BEF side-dishes were identical to the Reser “Baked” products.

While Reser ‘s complaint takes important measures to outline their company history, financial objectives, and proprietary “Baked process” at issue, the filing may fall short of some elements required for a valid trade secrets misappropriation claim under Ohio State law. Specifically, the complaint lacks specific examples showing that their “Baked process” was actually kept secret, or that reasonable measures were taken to maintain its secrecy. Moreover, Reser contends that it “relied on protections of the signed NDA” when it disclosed its confidential information to BEF, and that the information was secret because the Reser “employee manual expressly prohibits Reser employees from divulging company trade secrets and makes clear that an employee who does will be subject to discipline for doing so” (Complaint, 10). However, the complaint makes no specific reference to how the “Baked process” technology was kept secret by Reser, and instead highlights several instances where this technology was shared and made readily available for BEF executives.

The lawsuit is active and pending in front of Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken United States District Court for the District of Oregon in Portland.

On October 25, 2012, National Jewish Health (“NJH”) brought suit against WebMD Health Services Group, Inc. and WebMD Health Corp.(collectively “WebMD”) in the United States District Court of the District of Colorado. The suit claims copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with prospective business relations, conversion, and unjust enrichment under Colorado law, and breach of contract under New York law.

NJH is a Colorado-based nonprofit hospital; U.S. News & World Report has ranked NJH the #1 respiratory hospital in the nation for fifteen consecutive years. According to the Complaint, between 2002 and 2008, NJH developed “a set of software implemented wellness programs, including its FITLogix® and QuitLogix® programs.” (collectively “Programs”) The Programs help assist users with obesity and tobacco addiction, respectively. On February 4, 2010, NJH entered into a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) with WebMD related to “Tobacco Cessation and Weight Management programs.” (“T&W programs”) Pursuant to the NDA, NJH presented WebMD with “Confidential Information” related to the Programs, including “operations, finances, plans and trade secrets . . . .” – all of which were proprietary information not known to the public.

In May 2010, NJH began negotiations with Lowes, Inc. (“Lowes”) to implement one or both of the Programs. After a “trial period,” during which NJH satisfied all of Lowes “approval criteria,” Lowes opted not to implement the Programs. NJH later learned that Lowes contracted with WebMD to implement WebMD’s program “My Lifetrack,” which “highly resemble(s)” the Programs. NJH alleges “My Lifetrack” uses “substantial portions of the [Programs’] sequencing, screen displays, textual material, and other content." Prior to its agreement with NJH, WebMD did not “offer either stand-alone obesity or smoking cessation programs.”

In its NDA with NJH, WebMD was only permitted to use the Confidential Information related to the Programs for an “Authorized Purpose” – this was loosely defined in the Complaint as relating to “a potential business relationship or transaction [between NJH and WebMD] related to [T&W programs].” NJH’s misappropriation of trade secrets claim is based on WebMD’s alleged use of NJH’s Confidential Information (including its trade secrets) for unauthorized purposes, including “enter[ing] into the market for [T&W programs] . . . .” NJH seeks to enjoin WebMD from further implementing “My Lifetrack,” and also seeks damages (including punitive), and reasonable attorney’s fees.

This is the second trade secret misappropriation suit that WebMD is currently litigating. The first, WebMD Health Corp. v. Anthony T. Dale, is pending trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It features WebMD in a reversed role - suing a former employee for alleged misappropriation of WebMD's trade secrets.

On October 12, 2012, Zynga Inc. (“Zynga”) brought suit in California Superior Court against former employee Alan Patmore for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Breach of Contract. The suits concerns theft of confidential information related to Zynga’s online games, and includes additional defendants (“DOES 1 through 50”) whom Zynga does not yet know the identity of, but who allegedly aided and abetted Patmore’s wrongful conduct.

Zynga, Inc. is a San Francisco-based online social gaming company, responsible for popular games such as CityVille and Words With Friends. Patmore was the General Manager for CityVille at Zynga, and signed a Confidentially Agreement with Zynga pursuant to his employment. The contract obligated Patmore to protect Zynga’s confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. However, on August 16, 2012, Patmore resigned from Zynga. Zynga alleges that at that time (if not earlier), Patmore had been recruited by, and agreed to join, Zynga’s competitor Kixeye. On the day of his departure, Patmore allegedly transferred 760 confidential Zynga files to his personal Dropbox account without Zynga’s consent, which he intended to provide to Kixeye. During Patmore’s exit interview, he refused to sign a Termination Certification that he had complied with his prior contractual obligations.

Zynga alleged that the stolen information – which includes “unreleased game design documents” and other “strategic roadmaps”– could be used to improve Kixeye’s “internal understand and know-how of core game mechanics and monetization techniques, its execution, and ultimately its marketing standing to compete more effectively with Zynga.” According to the complaint, Patmore attempted to cover up his conduct by uninstalling Dropbox. However, Patmore’s attempts were apparently unsuccessful, and “he left a forensics trial of his wrongful conduct.” Both the relatively new subject matter of the claim (i.e. “free-to-play online social games”), as well as the defendant’s alleged use of cloud technology to misappropriate his employer’s trade secrets, make this an interesting case and one to follow as the litigation moves forward.

UPDATE: Kixeye's CEO Will Harbin fired back at Zynga: "Zynga is burning to the ground and bleeding top talent and instead of trying to fix the problems -- better work environment and better products -- they are resorting to the only profit center that has ever really worked for them: their legal department." Two weeks after making that statement, Zynga expanded the suit to include Kixeye as named Defendants.

On September 20, 2012, Howard Scott King brought suit against popular rock band Mötley Crüe (itself, its touring company and bassist Tommy Lee as an individual, collectively “MC”), for misappropriation of trade secrets in the Superior Court of California. The suit relates to MC’s allegedly unlawful use of King’s proposal for a “Tommy Lee Loop Coaster” (“Coaster”).

According to his complaint, King developed the idea for the Coaster as part of his now defunct business “Stages ‘N’ Motion.” King described it as “a track on which [Tommy Lee] would play his drums on a platform on wheels which follow the track until Lee was in an upside down position playing the drums and he would continue playing the drums as the platform followed the track in a complete loop.” On or about November 21, 1991, King alleged that he discussed a proposal for the Coaster with Top Rock Development Corp. (MC’s agents). King claims that both the proposal, as well as a signed confidentiality agreement (which has since been lost or misplaced), expressly stated that the ideas were confidential, and that King was to be compensated should MC implement the Coaster. In June 2011, MC begin using the Coaster, or a substantially similar device, as a centerpiece for concerts, as well as in commercials and other promotions.

(link to video of device in question)

King brings trade secret misappropriation actions under both the California Uniform Trade Secret Act (CUTSA), as well as common law. The key difference between the claims is that the CUTSA claim seeks relief in the form of actual damages ($400,000), or in the alternative, a “reasonable royalty”; conversely, the common law claim does not seek a reasonable royalty damages award. Both claims seek injunctive relief, as well as punitive damages in light of MC’s alleged “willful and malicious” conduct.