On November 30, 2020, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Van Buren v. United States, which may resolve a circuit split on the extent to which the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) covers an employee’s alleged misappropriation of the employer’s information. Enacted in 1986, the CFAA imposes criminal penalties on
In the early 2000s, New York City experienced a surging bedbug epidemic. In response, the company FabriClear created a spray to treat bedbug infestations, which it called “FabriClear” (“the FabriClear Product”). In 2013, FabriClear approached Harvest Direct, a company that markets and sells “As Seen on TV” products, to discuss bringing the FabriClear Product to market. The two companies executed a confidentiality agreement, which specified that Harvest Direct could not reproduce, use, alter, or modify the FabriClear Product formula without FabriClear’s written permission. The parties later negotiated a licensing agreement, giving Harvest Direct the right to the exclusive license to market and sell the FabriClear Product and to use FabriClear’s “trademarks, trade names, copyrights, trade secrets, technical data, information, know-how, formulas, and other intellectual property rights.” The FabriClear Product sold very well for approximately five years, but toward the end of 2018, sales started to decline. It turned out that Harvest Direct had started marketing its own competing bedbug product (the “X-Out Product”). Harvest Direct started working on its product in 2015, and its product was indistinguishable from the FabriClear Product, including very similar packaging. Indeed, there was evidence presented that, at some point, Harvest Direct just repackaged existing bottles of the FabriClear Product. One of the bottles investigated by the FBI revealed a FabriClear Product label under the X-Out Product label. FabriClear then filed suit against Harvest Direct for misappropriation of trade secrets, among other claims.
Continue Reading Battling Bedbugs: Massachusetts District Court Allows Case Against Distributor that Created a Competing Product to Move Forward
In June 2020, we wrote about a Texas appellate court overturning a $740 million judgment for real estate analytics company HouseCanary because the jury instructions included theories of liability for which there was no evidence and allowed recovery on claims that were preempted by the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
On June 18, 2020, the…
A Texas appellate court reversed a $740 million trade secret theft and fraud judgment for real estate analytics company HouseCanary against rival Amrock, holding flawed jury instructions require a new trial.
In 2014, Title Source Insurance (TSI), a property valuation and settlement services company, contracted with HouseCanary, a real estate analytics company, to design an app that would allow TSI to perform appraisals more efficiently. The parties specifically agreed not to “decompile, disassemble, reverse translate, reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to discover or directly access the source code of [the app] or any component or portion thereof.” HouseCanary’s work on the app involved multiple alleged trade secrets, including a complex data dictionary of property valuation attributes and a number of internal calculations and formulas used to evaluate property value. While HouseCanary built TSI’s app, TSI allegedly started developing its own products, utilizing HouseCanary’s protected data and formulas. Eventually the parties’ relationship deteriorated, and TSI accused HouseCanary of failing to deliver on the parties’ contract and sued for breach of contract and fraud. HouseCanary counterclaimed for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and fraud. A jury found for HouseCanary and awarded actual and punitive damages.
Continue Reading Texas Court Orders New Trial After $740M Judgment