caltradesecrets.com

Posts Tagged ‘Court of Appeal’

Tenth Circuit Denies Prejudgment Interest for Lack of Certainty Even Where Jury Found Lost Profits and Awarded Unjust Enrichment

In Damages, Prejudgment Interest, Sister State Construction of UTSA on August 16, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for...

Image via Wikipedia

In a trade secrets case where the jury awarded plaintiff ClearOne Communications, Inc. damages on lost profits and unjust enrichment, the Tenth Circuit held that prejudgment interest was not appropriate because the damages calculations were based on speculation and assumptions and lacked the mathematical certainty required to justify an award of prejudgment interest.  ClearOne Communications v. Chang, et al., 2011 WL 3468215, No. 09-4128 (10th Cir. Aug. 9, 2011) (slip op.).

Background

ClearOne licensed to Biamp Systems Corporation an acoustic echo cancellation (AEC) algorithm for an average price of $83.49 per channel in 2002. Id. *1. In 2004, WideBand Solutions, Inc. and associated individual defendants agreed to develop AEC software for Biamp and allegedly developed said software based upon ClearOne’s trade secret computer code. Id. Biamp stopped making payments to ClearOne and instead began a licensing agreement with WideBand in 2005. Id. Biamp allegedly used the infringing code to develop its product.  Id. In 2006, Biamp developed its own technology and stopped licensing WideBand’s allegedly illicit code. Id.

Damages Calculations

ClearOne’s damages expert Richard Hoffman calculated lost profits and unjust enrichment. Id. Hoffman calculated lost profits by multiplying the number of channels Biamp licensed from WideBand by $83.49 (the average price per channel from the ClearOne/Biamp contract). Id. The jury found that ClearOne was entitled to $956,000 in lost profits against the WideBand defendants, and $956,000 in lost profits against Biamp. Id. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Orrick Wins 6-Year Long Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Battle for Intel

In California Appellate Opinions on August 20, 2010 at 1:13 pm
SANTA CLARA, CA - JULY 15:  An Intel sign is d...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

On Wednesday, the California Supreme Court denied review of Sivaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp., 184 Cal. App. 4th 210, 109 Cal. Rptr.3d 27 (Cal. Ct. App. 6th Dist. Apr. 29, 2010), ending a six-year long trade secret misappropriation battle.

Plaintiff Silvaco Data Systems (Silvaco) sued defendant Intel Corporation (Intel) alleging that Intel had misappropriated certain trade secrets used by Silvaco in its software products. Id. *215.  The gravamen of the dispute was that Intel had used software acquired from another software concern with knowledge that Silvaco had accused that concern of incorporating source code, stolen from Silvaco, in its products. Id. **215-16. Read the rest of this entry »

Sixth District Reverses Grant of Summary Adjudication of UTSA Claim on Equitable Estoppel Grounds

In California Appellate Opinions, Statute of Limitations on July 29, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Applied Materials
Image by gholzer via Flickr

In Insyst Ltd. v. Applied Materials, Inc., 2010 WL 2892712 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2010) (unpublished), the California Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication of plaintiff’s misappropriation of trade secrets cause of action.  The trial court granted summary adjudication based on the lapse of the statute of limitations.  The Court of Appeal reversed on equitable estoppel grounds.  Defendant “effectively concedes that in its motion it presented no evidence of plaintiff’s conduct after December 2002 apart from the filing of the complaint on July 30, 2004. Instead, in its reply defendant simply challenged plaintiff to present evidence of its diligence, arguing that plaintiff made no showing of diligence. This is not how a party should be able to obtain a summary adjudication.”

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Enhanced by Zemanta