Photo of Olivia T. NguyenPhoto of John Gray

UAB dba Planner 5D sued Facebook and Princeton for copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation under both the Defend Trade Secrets Act and California UTSA, based on use of an AI dataset. The plaintiff alleges that it owns a large dataset of three-dimensional objects and scenes. Princeton allegedly downloaded thousands of scenes by scraping the

Photo of Janet M. Howe

The Southern District of New York denied defendant Lionbridge Technologies, Inc.’s (Lionbridge) motion to dismiss, holding that TransPerfect Global, Inc. (TransPerfect), sufficiently pleaded that information disclosed to potential bidders in an online auction constituted trade secrets and that Lionbridge misappropriated these trade secrets. In 2014, the Delaware Chancery Court ordered the dissolution through modified auction of TransPerfect, a translation, website localization, and litigation support company. The auction had three phases. At each phase the bidding pool narrowed, and the bidders received increasingly detailed and sensitive information about TransPerfect. HIG, an investment firm that had just submitted a bid to purchase Lionbridge (TransPerfect’s largest competitor), participated in the auction. According to TransPerfect’s complaint, HIG participated in all three phases, even though it never intended to purchase TransPerfect because TransPerfect would not agree to require its former owner to enter into a noncompetition agreement. During the final stages of the auction, HIG gained access to thousands of competitively sensitive documents, including detailed pricing and cost information. TransPerfect alleged that after the sale, HIG shared this confidential information with Lionbridge, which then used the information to undercut TransPerfect’s pricing.
Continue Reading Use of Information Outside Scope of Confidentiality Agreement as Misappropriation

Photo of John Gray

In March 2018, HouseCanary won a $706M trade secrets verdict against Title Source Inc., a Quicken loans affiliate.  After a seven-week jury trial, HouseCanary moved the court to seal fourteen trial exhibits because they purportedly revealed HouseCanary’s trade secrets, although the parties discussed and displayed these fourteen exhibits in open court at trial (they asked witnesses questions about the exhibits, displayed portions of the exhibits in the courtroom, and read portions of the exhibits to the jury). The trial court ultimately ruled to seal the exhibits.  Last week, the Fourth Court of Appeals in Texas ruled on appeal that the trial court erred by granting HouseCanary’s motion to seal the exhibits after trial, concluding that the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act does not require courts to set aside valid protective orders and that HouseCanary didn’t follow the proper procedure, laid out in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a (and agreed to by the parties in their stipulated protective order), for sealing the documents.  
Continue Reading Title Source Inc. v. HouseCanary, Inc.