caltradesecrets.com

Posts Tagged ‘Trial court’

Second District Vacates Arbitration Award for Failure to Resolve Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Counterclaim

In Arbitration on November 15, 2010 at 11:08 am
An orb weaver producing silk from its spinnerets
Image via Wikipedia

The Second District Court of Appeal vacated an arbitration award for failure to resolve defendants’ counter-claim for misappropriation of trade secrets.  Rad v. Keehan, No. B222049, 2010 WL 4487142 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Nov. 10, 2010).  Defendants Michael Keehan, Lucy Keehan, Lucy’s Silk Store, Inc. and Michael’s Imports, Inc. (collectively defendants) appealed from a judgment entered after the trial court denied their motion to vacate an arbitration award against them and instead confirmed the award.  Id. *1.  Defendants contended that the arbitrator failed to decide their counter-claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, and thus the trial court should have vacated the arbitration award for failure to resolve all issues submitted to arbitration. Id. The Second District Agreed. Id.

Background

Plaintiff Ira Rad, on behalf of his company Bita LLC, executed an agreement (Sales Agreement) with one of defendants’ corporations, Michael Imports, Inc., to sell and distribute silk products from defendants’ “Lucy’s Silk” label. Id. Bita paid defendants $60,000 as partial consideration for the exclusive right to sell the products in the eastern United States, but after execution of the Sales Agreement, defendants continued to sell the products directly to East Coast customers, undercutting Bita’s sales.  Id. Plaintiffs sued defendants, alleging, inter alia, causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission with respect to the Sales Agreement. Id. The parties ultimately stipulated to submit their disputes to binding arbitration and a stay of the litigation was entered. Id. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

After Nine Years of Litigation, Jasmine Networks v. Marvell Semiconductor Finally Proceeds to Trial

In Trial on October 5, 2010 at 9:38 am
Engraving of Gilbert and Sullivan's Trial by Jury.
Image via Wikipedia

After over nine years of litigation, the trade secrets misappropriation case in Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. is underway.   As reported by Kate Moser of The Recorder, Jasmine, represented by San Francisco’s McGrane Greenfield, contends that Marvell abused a nondisclosure agreement to rip off valuable intellectual property and claims that it lost business worth $80 million to $100 million.  Marvell’s attorneys have argued that Jasmine’s alleged trade secrets are based on stolen technology that Jasmine tried to pass off to Marvell as its own: “The truth is that Jasmine was a failed start-up founded at the tail end of the technology boom of the late 1990s,” Bauer wrote in Marvell’s trial brief. “In its short life, it never completed a product, did not obtain a single patent, and earned not a penny of revenue.”

The case was filed on September 12, 2001, and has featured two appeals to the Sixth District Court of Appeal.  Last June, the trial judge dismissed the case for lack of standing by Jasmine, but the Sixth District reversed, and the California Supreme Court denied Marvell’s petition for review and stay.

Jasmine’s key evidence is an infamous voice mail accidentally left by Marvell’s former general counsel, where he called a Jasmine in-house lawyer and apparently meant to hang up, but allegedly continued to talk with two colleagues on speakerphone about stealing trade secrets from Jasmine.  The voicemail was finally played for a jury on Friday.  A transcript prepared by Jasmine quotes Marvell’s former general counsel as saying: Read the rest of this entry »