Photo of Austin Yost

The Ninth Circuit recently reaffirmed that the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act requires a plaintiff to describe its alleged trade secret with sufficient particularity. But the Ninth Circuit opened the door to allowing a plaintiff to modify its trade secret identification after discovery. It held that a district court abused its discretion in granting summary

On August 20, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a jury’s $140 million compensatory damages award in Epic Systems Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. The Seventh Circuit held that there was enough evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (TCS) stole Epic Systems Corp.’s (Epic) confidential information, including trade secrets, and in doing so, avoided incurring significant research and development costs. Although the jury awarded Epic an additional $700 million in punitive damages, the Seventh Circuit ultimately reduced that award to $140 million.

Epic sued TCS in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging that “TCS used fraudulent means to access and steal Epic’s trade secrets and other confidential information.” Epic asserted that TCS “downloaded, from 2012 to 2014, thousands of documents” and used the confidential information contained in those documents to develop a “spreadsheet comparing TCS’s health-record software” with Epic software. TCS’s internal communications showed that “TCS used this spreadsheet in an attempt to enter the United States health-record-software market, steal Epic’s client, and address key gaps” found in TCS software.

Continue Reading Epic v. Tata: Trade Secret Damages Reduced to $280M

Zomm, LLC (“Zomm”) sued Apple Inc. (“Apple”) in April 2018, asserting claims for patent infringement, breach of contract, and unfair competition.  On June 17, 2019, the District Court dismissed Zomm’s breach of contract claim, which relates to Apple’s alleged violation of a confidentiality agreement that the parties executed for purposes of sharing information about the

The Third Circuit partially reversed a lower court ruling granting the defendant, Esschem Inc. (“Esschem”), partial summary judgment in a lawsuit claiming that it used plaintiff’s, Heraeus Medical GMBH’s (“Heraeus”), trade secrets to help another company compete with plaintiff’s bone cement product.  Haraeus claims that its competitor used its proprietary bone cement formula and then