Cases from S.D.N.Y.

S.D.N.Y.
New York Court Dismisses Inevitable Disclosure Claim

Alleging a stand-alone claim under the inevitable disclosure doctrine, plaintiff sued a former a sales associate and sought permanent injunctive relief barring the former employee from disclosing any of plaintiff's trade secrets or confidential information, and from working for its competitor. There were no allegations that the former employee breached a non-disclosure agreement, disclosed or misappropriated any trade secrets, or was subject to a non-compete agreement. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss and declined to expand New York's application of the inevitable disclosure doctrine under this set of facts and outside of the preliminary injunction context.

S.D.N.Y.
DuPont Wins Complex Case on Summary Judgment

Big Vision Private, Ltd. (Big Vision), a company based in Mumbai, India, lost its trade secrets case against E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (DuPont) on a motion for summary judgment. The case will be of interest both to practitioners of trade secrets and of patent law. Big Vision claimed that DuPont had filed a U.S. patent on a manufacturing process for which Big Vision already had a patent in India.

Both the claims and the history were complex. The two companies had worked together in trials. As for the claims, the case has several hundred exhibits and the court notes, in footnote 1, "the parties have submitted two separate 56.1 statements, two 56.1 counterstatements (resulting in 223 paragraphs of fact, nearly 200 of which were contested to some extent), 227 exhibits, and thousands of pages of deposition transcripts."

Big Vision appears to have made several fundamental mistakes in crafting its trade secrets case. For example, the court found that its definition of its own trade secret changed. Big Vision also made mistakes in the details of its claim. Big Vision claimed that no other company had a "cost-competitive" product, but failed to offer any pricing evidence.

Big Vision had failed to describe its trade secret with particularity, a rule that is common in most Courts of Appeals, even though "the Second Circuit has not explicitly adopted this requirement."

Big Vision did not have a trade secret. "[T]he evidence shows that Big Vision disclosed either the 'recipe' it obtained from another company’s patent, or variations of a formulation derived from structures tested at the First and Second Trials, to at least 16 different third parties."

Finally, the court also found no misappropriation by DuPont.