Quinn emanuel trial lawyers

Trade Secret Litigation
Back to Intellectual Property Litigation

IntroductionSign up for firm Publications  Print

Trade secrets litigation has always been a major part of the firm’s practice.  We have been retained as counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants in the highest-stakes, highest-profile trade secrets cases ever litigated.  For over three decades, we have represented companies of all sizes—from venture-backed startups to Fortune 500 companies—in a wide range of industries, including aerospace, biotech, internet, medical devices, mobile devices, pharmaceuticals, semiconductor, software, telecommunications and finance.  Our representative trade secrets clients include General Motors, Google, Waymo, Virgin Galactic, Mattel, Shell, Northrop Grumman, Avery Dennison, Trust Company of the West, Disney, IBM, Motorola, Maxwell Technologies, Intuit, easyJet Airlines, Home Depot, Zynga, and many others.

Our engagements also include employee movement between competitors.  It is a fact of corporate life that competitors frequently hire employees for what they know—whether proprietary or not.  Because of the relative ease with which technology and information can be transferred,  misappropriation of confidential information is a constant threat.

No technology is too complex for our lawyers to understand when technical trade secrets are involved.  We can call upon the over 250 lawyers in our firm who have technical degrees in virtually all areas of science and engineering.  We likewise have extensive experience in prosecuting and defending trade secrets cases in the financial industry, including those involving asset managers and investment funds.  We are well-versed in the recently enacted federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”), with our firm litigating several cases involving such claims.

Time is of the essence in trade secrets cases.  Once the proprietary data is exchanged, it is often too late.  We can spring into action on a moment’s notice.  We produce high-quality legal work literally overnight—obtaining or defeating applications for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions that have profound effects on our clients’ businesses.

Sometimes trade secrets misappropriation cases have criminal aspects.  If so, we can call upon our white collar specialists with expertise in this area.  Our firm was among the first to represent an aggrieved client under the Economic Espionage Act, which resulted in federal criminal convictions and an eight-figure civil jury verdict stemming from the theft of its trade secrets.

We also have won, year after year, some of the most significant appellate decisions involving trade secrets law in federal and state courts across the country.  As a result, our firm provides comprehensive trade secrets representation from the investigative, pre-suit phase to trial and through final appeal.


  • Avery Dennison
  • Barnes & Noble
  • Brøderbund Software
  • CalComp, Inc.
  • Callidus Software
  • Corbis
  • Coty, Inc.
  • Data East
  • Disney
  • Dow Chemical
  • eBay
  • Electronic Arts
  • Fox
  • FremantleMedia
  • Google
  • HBO
  • Hallmark
  • Home Depot
  • IBM
  • International Game Technology
  • Intuit
  • INVISTA/Koch Industries
  • Mattel
  • Maxwell Technologies
  • Motorola
  • MTV
  • Multiply.com
  • Napster
  • National Academy of Recording Arts
  • and Sciences
  • Northrop Grumman
  • Paramount
  • Pennzoil/Quaker State
  • Pfizer, Inc.
  • Phoenix American
  • Phoenix Technologies
  • Pinterest
  • PPG Industries, Inc.
  • Sae-A Trading Company Limited
  • Shell Exploration & Production Company
  • Shoebuy.com
  • SolidWorks
  • StubHub
  • SSA Global
  • Trust Company of the West
  • Turner Entertainment
  • Viacom
  • Virgin Galactic
  • Warner Home Video
  • Waymo
  • Zynga

Back to Top

Back to Intellectual Property Litigation

Recent Representations Print

  • uCar Technology (USA) Inc. and uCar Inc. v. Yan Li, Hua Zhong, Da Huo, and Zhenzhen Kou (N.D. Cal 2018). We represented four California-based scientists accused of misappropriating data and other information related to smart car/driverless car technology.  We defeated plaintiff uCar’s effort to secure a preliminary injunction, with the court finding provisionally that there was no evidence that our clients had engaged in any trade secret theft or breached any obligation to uCar.  After forcing uCar to bring its chief scientists to the United States for deposition, and after we filed key motions challenging whether uCar even owned any trade secrets, we achieved a favorable settlement.  uCar dismissed its complaint with prejudice.
  • Calendar Research LLC v. StubHub, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal. 2018).  We represent StubHub in a case brought by a startup investor alleging trade secret misappropriation, among other claims.  We obtained summary judgment on the trade secret claim following an expedited expert and fact discovery period, during which the experts examined over 7 million lines of code for several apps.
  • Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal. 2018).  We represented Waymo LLC, formerly Google’s self-driving car program, in an action asserting misappropriation of trade secrets related to Waymo’s self-driving LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) technology against Uber Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto LLC.  The parties reached a settlement on the fourth day of trial, after Waymo had presented much of its case-in-chief, granting Waymo a percentage of equity in Uber (valued at $245 million) as well as injunctive relief that assures Uber will not use Waymo’s trade secret hardware and software self-driving car technology.
  • MGA Entertainment, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc. (LA Superior Court 2018).  We recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client Mattel in its long-running battle against toy-company MGA Entertainment.  Litigation between the parties started in 2004 and has spanned two lengthy trials in federal court, two appeals to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and a host of other significant trial and appellate court work.  After more than a decade of litigation, the only remaining claim between the parties was a claim by MGA for alleged trade-secret misappropriation pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, for which MGA was purporting to seek more than $1 billion in damages.  Recognizing that Mattel had a strong defense based on the statute-of-limitations, we convinced the court to bifurcate the case to address that defense first.  Mattel then moved for summary judgment on the basis that MGA had discovered its trade-secrets claim more than three years before it was first raised.  In granting Mattel’s summary judgment motion, the court agreed that MGA’s claim was untimely, and thus closed the latest (and hopefully final) chapter in this marathon litigation.
  • West v. eBay (N.D. NY 2018). We represented eBay, defending it against trade secret misappropriation and related claims arising out of the development of eBay’s valet service.  The case settled on confidential terms after we deposed the plaintiff and obtained an admission that he had altered evidence. 
  • Curvature LLC et al v. PivIT Global, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2018).  We are representing a computer hardware company, PivIT, and its founders against trade secret claims brought by their former employer, Curvature, regarding the alleged theft of customer lists and other business information.
  • United States of America v. Pangang Group Company (N.D. Cal. 2018). We are currently representing the Pangang Group Company in a criminal prosecution pending in the Northern District of California related to the alleged theft of trade secrets from the DuPont Co.  The United States government filed charges in 2012, alleging that Pangang conspired to steal titanium dioxide technology from DuPont.  The case was considered one of the most significant prosecutions ever brought under the Economic Espionage Act and was the subject of a front page profile in the Wall Street Journal.  While the case is still pending, we have staved off prosecution for over six years through a series of pretrial motions and by an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.  Our lawyers have deep substantive expertise in this area as well as considerable ties to the Northern District Courthouse and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.    
  • Vertellus v. W.R. Grace (D. Md. 2018).  We currently represent Vertellus as plaintiff in a trade secrets theft case, including under the DTSA, arising out of the defendant’s accused theft of intellectual property for catalysts used in the manufacture of agrochemicals.
  • Complete Entertainment Resources LLC formerly d/b/a Songkick v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal. 2017).  We represented Songkick in a lawsuit alleging that Ticketmaster used 85,000 documents misappropriated by a former Songkick Vice President to design its competing system for artist presales technology, along with claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  After completing fact and expert discovery, we defeated the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  Faced with imminent trial, the defendants settled the case for $110 million and also acquired Songkick’s assets for a confidential sum.
  • Google LLC v. Equustek Solutions Inc., Clarma Enterprises Inc., and Robert Angus (N.D. Cal. 2017).  Google retained Quinn Emanuel to bring a suit for a declaratory judgment and injunction to prevent the enforcement of an order in the United States issued by a Canadian court concerning search results worldwide.  The order, which the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed, required Google, which was not a party to the underlying dispute, to remove the websites of the defendants (who had defaulted) from search results served in every country on the grounds the Canadian defendants’ websites offered products that violated plaintiffs’ trade secrets.  The action contends that the order is not enforceable in the United States because it is repugnant to U.S. policy as expressed by the First Amendment and Communications Decency Act, and violated international comity.  The Canadian court’s 2014 order was the first global delisting order, and Google’s United States challenge squarely tees up whether foreign countries can restrict the speech of U.S. internet services in the United States.  On November 2, 2017, Judge Davila of the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Canadian order in the United States.  He found that enforcing “the Canadian order undermines the policy goals of Section 230 and threatens free speech on the global internet.”
  • Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment Inc., et al. (and consolidated actions) (9th 2013). On behalf of Mattel, Inc., we obtained a complete reversal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of a $172.5 million judgment entered against Mattel following a jury verdict on a trade-secrets misappropriation claim raised by toy company MGA Entertainment, Inc.  The Ninth Circuit agreed with Mattel that MGA’s trade secrets claim, which was raised as a novel “counterclaim-in-reply,” was improper because it was not a “compulsory” response to any claim Mattel had raised and the claim therefore “should not have reached this jury.”  The Ninth Circuit vacated the jury verdict and remanded the claim to the district court with instructions that it be dismissed.  The victory for Mattel was named one of the year’s most significant appellate decisions in the legal press.
  • Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (San Diego Superior Court 2017). We currently represent Qualcomm Inc. in a state court action alleging trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract.  Qualcomm alleges that Apple misappropriated its trade secrets by using them to advance the competing technologies of Intel, a competitor in cellular modem chipsets.  Qualcomm also alleges that Apple breached agreements protecting its proprietary information from disclosure.  Trial in this case is currently set for April 29, 2019.
  • LIQWD, Inc. and Olaplex LLC v. L’Oreal (D. Del. 2017). We represent Olaplex LLC in a trade secret, breach of NDA and patent infringement case against various L’Oréal entities.  Olaplex is a small California start-up that discovered and developed a game-changing product in a Santa Barbara garage that strengthens and rebuilds broken disulfide bonds in hair that has been chemically treated for bleaching and coloring.  Olaplex was an overnight success and literally created a brand new product category known as “bond builders.”  L’Oréal, the world’s largest beauty company, took notice and approached Olaplex for confidential discussions under an NDA. L’Oréal is accused of using our client’s trade secret information to develop infringing competitor products.  The court has issued a Ruling and Recommendation granting our client Olaplex LLC a preliminary injunction against L’Oréal’s continued manufacture and sale of the infringing “bond builder” products.  The case is ongoing.
  • ArcherDX, Inc. et al. v. QIAGEN Sciences, LLC et al. (D. Del. 2017). We are defending QIAGEN, a firm that specializes in DNA testing, in a theft of trade secret action brought by Archer Therapeutics, alleging that QIAGEN  took its trade secrets related to customer identity and pricing. Archer also alleges that QIAGEN stole information related to technical details of its products used for preparing DNA for sequencing.
  • Theravance Biopharma v Junning Lee (N.D. Cal. 2017). We represented Theravance Biopharma against one of its chief scientists who was alleged to have taken to a Chinese competitor over 150,000 electronic files—the equivalent of 600 bankers’ boxes of documents—for use after termination of the defendant’s employment with Theravance.  After securing a preliminary injunction against the defendant, the case settled through entry of a permanent injunction and other benefits to Theravance.
  • International Game Technology et el.  v. Leap Forward Gaming, Inc. et al. (D. Nev. 2016). We represented International Game Technology (“IGT”) in its trade secret action against Leap Forward Gaming, in which IGT alleged that its former employees misappropriated IGT’s trade secrets to set up a competing venture.  Among the misappropriated trade secrets at issue was a player-tracking technology that allows the gaming machines in a casino to store, retrieve, and update player’s activity data from the casino’s server. 
  • Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc. v. Robert Ricci, Mirta Valdes and SRS Distribution, Inc. (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court 2016). We were retained mid-way through the litigation as trial counsel to defend a trade secrets case against SRS Distribution, a competitor and new employer to several former employees of plaintiff.  After obtaining discovery and filing a summary judgment motion, the case settled favorably for our client.
  • Fair Isaac Corporation v. eBay Enterprise (NY Commercial Division 2016). We represented eBay and eBay Enterprise in counterclaims against Fair Isaac Corporation (of FICO score fame), including trade secret misappropriation based upon a former eBay employee’s move to Fair Isaac Corporation.  The case settled on confidential terms after the court indicated that it would grant eBay’s request to disqualify in-house counsel and prevent the former employee from testifying in the case.
  • Lifesize, Inc. v. Chimene (W.D. Tex. 2016). We represented Lifesize, Inc. against Beau Chimene, its former employee, for misappropriating Lifesize’s trade secrets for the benefit of Lifesize’s direct competitor.  Claims included trade secret theft under the DTSA and state law, as well as violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  We reached a favorable settlement on behalf of our client.
  • Virgin Galactic, LLC v. Thomas E. Markusic (AAA Arbitration 2016). We represented Virgin Galactic, LLC in an arbitration against a former employee who started a competing small satellite rocket propulsion company using Virgin Galactic trade secret information and in violation of contractual and fiduciary duties owed to Virgin Galactic.  Using forensic evidence, we were able to establish that our adversary engaged in evidence spoliation and ultimately obtained an order for terminating sanctions, conclusively finding that the employee had misappropriated Virgin Galactic’s trade secrets and violated his duties to Virgin Galactic. 
  • PPG Industries, Inc. v. Jiangsu Tie Mao Glass Co., Ltd. et al. (D. Pa. 2016). We represent PPG Industries, Inc. (“PPG”) in an action against a China-based competitor and its agents.  Defendants conspired with a former PPG employee to misappropriate PPG’s trade secrets, including a proprietary report that details the manufacture of windows to be used in commercial aircrafts.  No other company in the industry has the technology outlined the proprietary report.
  • Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Twist Bioscience Corp., Emily LeProust, and Does 1-20 (Santa Clara Superior Court 2016).  We are currently defending Twist Bioscience, an innovative San Francisco biotech company, and its top executive, Emily Leproust, against Agilent’s attempt to stifle Twist’s cutting-edge synthetic DNA technology.  Agilent filed this case in February 2016, alleging trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and breach of duty of loyalty.
  • Ischemia Research and Education Foundation v. Pfizer Inc. (Santa Clara Superior Court 2016). Quinn Emanuel obtained a defense victory for Pfizer, Inc. in a state court action alleging trade secret misappropriation.  At the initial trial in 2008, when other counsel represented Pfizer, plaintiff prevailed on all claims and obtained a judgment of almost $60 million.  The court ordered a retrial, and Quinn Emanuel entered the case.  In 2015, Quinn Emanuel defended Pfizer at a seven-week liability retrial.  The jury found only 7 of 159 alleged trade secrets were misappropriated by a third-party consultant who was working part-time for Pfizer.  In 2016, Quinn Emanuel defended Pfizer during the three-week damages trial.  With Pfizer facing exposure in excess of $100 million, the jury awarded only $165,000 in damages.
  • American Leather Operations, LLC, et. al. v. Ultra-Mek Inc. (Middle District of North Carolina 2016). We represented American Leather Operations, LLC asserting trade secret misappropriation against a furniture hardware manufacturer for using American Leather’s trade secrets that it learned in the course of a confidential business relationship with American Leather. 
  • Zimmer Biomet v. Heraeus – Declaratory Proceedings (Frankfurt Appellate Court 2016). We represented one of the worlds leading orthopedic companies in a dispute with its main competitor about the territorial scope of an injunction rendered by a German appellate court.  While our adversary argued that the German injunction had worldwide effect, the court agreed with our position that the injunction must be construed narrowly and did not extend beyond Germany.
  • IQVIA Inc. et al v. Veeva Systems Inc. (D.N.J. 2016). We are representing IQVIA, one of the world’s largest healthcare data providers,  in pursuing trade secrets claims against Veeva Systems.  IQVIA alleges that Veeva exploited its access to IQVIA data obtained through the parties’ mutual clients in order to develop and enhance Veeva’s competitive healthcare data offerings and data management systems. 
  • In the Matter of Certain Opaque Polymers (International Trade Commission 2015). We represented as complainants Dow Chemical and Rohm & Haas against Organik Kimya in an investigation related to opaque emulsion polymers.  We uncovered evidence of spoliation and obtained a default judgment on the trade secret claims.  The ITC issued a 25-year exclusion order and affirmed almost $2 million in monetary sanctions.   
  • Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Lumileds Lighting Company LLC v. Elec-Tech International Co., Ltd., Elec-Tech International (H.K.) Co. et al. (N.D. Cal. 2015). We successfully represented eleven companies and executives in the Elec-Tech corporate family, one of world’s largest LED manufacturers, in suit alleging trade secret misappropriation and  violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”).  We obtained a dismissal with prejudice of the entire suit on the grounds that the asserted CFAA claim failed to satisfy federal jurisdictional requirements and thereby created new CFAA law in the Ninth Circuit.  The Court further declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.  The new case filed by plaintiffs is pending in California state court.
  • Colin Veitch and VSM Development Inc. v. Virgin Management USA, Inc., Virgin Group Investments Ltd., Virgin Group Holdings Limited, Virgin Enterprises Limited and Virgin Cruises Intermediate Limited (S.D. Florida 2015). We defended a group of the Virgin companies accused of trade  secret misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract by the former CEO of Norwegian Cruise Lines relating to cruise industry financial, business, and ship designs.  After significant favorable rulings on motions that compelled the plaintiff to identify its trade secrets with particularity and after deposing the plaintiff, the case settled favorably for our clients.
  • Machine Zone, Inc. v. Kabam, Inc. (San Francisco Superior Court 2015). We successfully defended software publisher and developer Kabam in a trade secret infringement suit brought by rival Machine Zone.  After the firm defeated two successive efforts by Machine Zone to obtain temporary restraining orders against Kabam, Machine Zone dismissed the case through settlement.
  • Lilith Games (Shanghai) Ltd. v. uCool, Ltd and uCool, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2015). We represented software publisher uCool, whose award winning game Heroes Charge was accused of trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement.  After we successfully defeated Lilith’s attempts to obtain a preliminary injunction against  the Heroes Charge game pending the trial on the merits, the case settled on favorable terms. 
  • craigslist, Inc. v. eBay Inc., eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc., Pierre Omidyar, and Joshua Silverman (San Francisco Superior Court 2015).  We obtained a favorable settlement on behalf of eBay, Inc., along with its founder and a former executive, in a state court action alleging trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, trademark infringement, and breach of fiduciary duty, among other claims. craigslist alleged that eBay used its 28.4% ownership interest in craigslist (and the associated board seat) to gather confidential information used to launch eBay’s own competing classified ads platform.  In 2014, after years of litigation with craigslist, eBay (previously represented by another firm) brought in Quinn Emanuel as co-counsel as this action approached a 2015 trial date.  With Quinn Emanuel as counsel for eBay, the parties resolved their dispute in advance of trial on terms that included craigslist buying back eBay’s entire ownership interest.
  • Genband LLC v. Metaswitch Networks (E.D. Tex. 2014). We defended our client Metaswitch against trade secret misappropriation claims when former employees of Genband were recruited by Metaswitch.  Genband alleged that the employees brought confidential trade secrets to Metaswitch during the transition relating to Voice-over-IP infrastructure equipment and related software.  We won a motion to dismiss all trade secret claims a few weeks before trial for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The case is now pending in Texas state court. 
  • Fortinet Inc. v. Sophos Group PLC (N.D. Cal 2014). We represented Fortinet Inc. as the plaintiff in wide-ranging patent and trade secret dispute with its competitor Sophos and certain former employees.  The dispute included parallel proceedings in the N.D. Cal, JAMS arbitration, the District of Delaware and three inter partes reviews before the PTAB.  In the JAMS arbitration, we successfully convinced the arbitrator that one former Fortinet employee had engaged in “despicable,” “deceitful and malicious” conduct, resulting in an award in favor of Fortinet for actual damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.  The parties settled shortly before trial in the N.D. Cal case on Fortinet’s trade secret and patent infringement claims, with the competitor agreeing to make a confidential one-time payment to Fortinet.
  • Perlan Therapeutics Inc. v. Ansun BioPharma, Inc. (formerly known as NexBio, Inc.) (San Diego Superior Court 2014).  We defended Ansun in a trade secret misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty dispute concerning flu treatment technology.  Perlan claimed that the founders of Ansun, who also founded Perlan, invented the flu technology while employed at Perlan and misappropriated the technology by leaving to form Ansun to develop the novel therapeutic.  Ansun counterclaimed for breach of license agreement on a technology related to the common cold that Perlan failed to develop.  After nine years of litigation, the parties settled on terms that allowed Ansun to continue developing its novel flu therapy.
  • Gotham City Online, LLC v. Art.com, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2014). We represented com in a case brought by Gotham City Online LLC that alleged trade secret misappropriation, among other claims.  We defeated plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order, successfully disqualified opposing counsel for using Art.com’s privileged documents to prepare Gotham’s case and effectively shut down the dispute, which was subsequently dismissed.
  • Schroeder, Rendezvoo LLC and Skoop Media v. Pinterest, et al. (New York Supreme Court—Commercial Division 2014). We represented social networking service Pinterest in a trade secret misappropriation action filed by an alleged former business partner of Pinterest’s first investor.  The suit alleged that the idea for the successful Pinterest website was originally developed by plaintiffs and later stolen from them by Pinterest’s first investor.  Plaintiffs further alleged that the investor gave the idea to the Pinterest founders who then used the ideas to develop the website pinterest.com.  We moved to dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims against Pinterest.  After briefing, the court granted our motion to dismiss on Pinterest’s behalf in its entirety.
  • Viasat v. Space Systems/Loral (S.D. Cal. 2014). In a patent infringement and breach of contract action, our client had developed trade secrets that one of its manufacturers misappropriated; however, by the time we were retained, the statute of limitation on a trade secrets claim had expired.  We therefore framed the trade secrets claims as a breach of the NDA.  Because of the overlap in those claims, we still litigated all the typical trade secret issues and, at trial, obtained a $123mm verdict on the breach claim, alongside a $180mm patent infringement verdict.
  • AeroManagement, Inc. v. Sukhoi Civil Aircraft Co., Alexander Pimenov, Victor Olenin, and Luigi de Franceso (S.D.N.Y. 2013). We represented one of the largest Russian jet manufacturers, Sukhoi Civil Aircraft, and three of its senior officers in a trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract and copyright infringement suit filed by AeroManagement.  Plaintiff claimed it provided interior design plans for the Sukhoi Super Jet and our client intended to commercially exploit those plans without paying for them.  AeroManagement sought an expedited preliminary injunction to prevent our client from displaying its jet at the Moscow Air Show, one of the biggest air shows in the world.  After we cross-examined the plaintiff’s CEO at the preliminary injunction hearing, the court denied the preliminary injunction motion, allowing our client to display its jet at the Moscow Air Show.
  • Wamco Inc. v. Oshino Lamps, Ltd. et al. (Orange County Superior Court 2013). We defeated a motion to enjoin Oshino Lamps, Ltd., the fledgling U.S. distributor and subsidiary of a Japanese manufacturer, and two independent contractors from selling manufacturer’s product in the United States on the basis of alleged trade secret misappropriation.
  • Dassault Systems Solid Works v. Mat Andresen and Rod Walker (D. Mass 2013). We represented Solid Works in a computer and customer theft case against a former employee and his colleague, which resulted in preliminary and permanent injunctions as well as damages awards against both defendants.
  • Maxwell Technologies, Inc. v. Linda Zhong, Jacky Au, Harbin Jurong and New Power Co, Ltd. (San Diego Superior Court 2012). We obtained a TRO, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction against our client’s former chief scientist who had been recruited and paid by a Chinese company to misappropriate our client’s trade secrets and confidential information (both in the U.S. and in China) in order to develop a product that directly competed with our client Maxwell Technologies’ ultra capacitor products.
  • United States of America v. Elliot Doxer (D. Mass. 2011). One of our partners that previously served as a U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts prosecuted an individual for stealing trade secrets from Akamai and providing them to an undercover agent posing as an Israeli intelligence officer.  The trade secrets consisted of confidential business information, including Akamai’s entire customer list and highly confidential information about contract terms.
  • Trust Company of the West, et al. v. Jeffrey Gundlach, et al. (Los Angeles Superior Court 2010). We represented Trust Company of the West (“TCW”) in a lawsuit against its former portfolio manager Jeffrey Gundlach and his new company, DoubleLine Capital.  After a two-month jury trial, we obtained a jury verdict finding in favor of TCW on its claim for theft of trade secrets and related claims.
  • INVISTA S.à r.l., et al. v. Rhodia S.A. (3d Circuit 2010). On behalf of Koch Industries’ Invista subsidiaries, we enabled a Delaware state court trade secret action by Invista to proceed against French chemicals firm Rhodia S.A., despite Rhodia’s efforts to dismiss or stay the action in favor of a French arbitration proceeding.  We defeated Rhodia’s motion and then won in the Third Circuit dismissal of  Rhodia’s appeal as moot, using the foreign arbitrator’s ruling issued during the course of the appeal to show that Rhodia was not a proper party.
  • Coty Inc. v. Harvey P. Alstodt; Bruce C. Kowalsky; Diversified Beauty Products (f/k/a MBA Beauty, Inc.); and Harvey P. Alstodt Associates, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 2010). We obtained a TRO against two former executives of client Coty, Inc., stopping them from violating their covenant not to compete by marketing a nail polish line which, “coincidentally,” consisted of many colors identical to Coty’s line.
  • Rudamac, Inc. Daniel Chambers, Thousand Oaks Printing & Specialties, Inc. and Consolidated Graphics, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court 2009).  We represented Rudamac, Inc., a printing company, in a case against a former employee and his new employer for trade secret misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty and interference with economic advantage.  After a month-long trial, we won a jury verdict for $5.7 million in compensatory damages and over $8 million in punitive damages.
  • Zynga Game Network v. Kyle McEachern (N.D. Cal. 2009). We represented Zynga against a former employee and contractor who hacked Zynga’s secure servers post-employment and misappropriated company code.  We obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the employee.  After the court threatened to hold the plaintiff in criminal contempt, the case settled with a permanent injunction and monetary judgment against the employee.
  • Limitnone LLC v. Google, Inc. (N.D. Ill., 7th Cir. 2008).  We represented Google in a case where plaintiff sought $1 billion for alleged trade secret theft and other claims related to the Google Apps suite of application programs.  We won a district court order transferring the case to Google’s forum of choice, which the Seventh Circuit affirmed on appeal.  The case subsequently settled on terms favorable to our client.
  • SPS Technologies v. Motorola (Florida Circuit Court 2008). We were retained by Motorola for the retrial of a trade secret theft action following a mistrial.  The plaintiff sought to wage a classic David versus Goliath battle, claiming that his small, defunct technology company was driven out of business by Motorola to facilitate the theft of its trade secrets valued at $10 billion.  After challenging the claims in pretrial motion practice, the case favorably settled days before the retrial was to commence.
  • Think Partnership v. Nelson (D. Utah 2008). We represented various individuals accused by their employer of forming a competing company using the employer’s trade secrets while working for the employer.  We negotiated a favorable settlement for our clients.
  • Rent IT v. Home Depot (C.D. Cal. 2008). After the Ninth Circuit partially reversed a summary judgment, we represented Home Depot in a suit filed by a disgruntled software vendor alleging trade secret theft and breach of a non-disclosure agreement.  We prevailed at trial, obtaining a complete defense verdict on all claims.
  • IBM v. PSI Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 2007-2008). We represented IBM in an intensely fought trade secret, patent and antitrust action against PSI Corp., a spinoff of Amdahl, which had announced it would offer an emulator allowing IBM’s proprietary mainframe computer architecture to be implemented on Itanium-based servers. During discovery, we learned that several Amdahl programmers with prior access to highly confidential IBM information under a strict NDA had taken that information to PSI and used it in source code they wrote.  We amended IBM’s Complaint to add trade secret claims and outmaneuvered PSI’s lawyers in working through source code written both in IBM Assembler and Intel Itanium assembly language as well as C, defining the trade secrets, distinguishing them from information that was publicly known and taking the depositions of the key employees.  The case settled very favorably shortly after PSI’s general counsel attended a deposition of one of the lead programmers and saw the damaging admissions we obtained.
  • UniRam v. TSMC (N.D. Cal. 2007). One of our partners represented UniRAM in a trade secrets claim against TSMC, the world’s largest independent chip foundry.  After a jury trial, UniRAM obtained a $30.5 million verdict.
  • Newton Research v. Shell Exploration & Production Company (N.D. Tex. 2007). We defended Shell Exploration & Production Company in a trade secret misappropriation and breach of NDA suit concerning gas centrifuge technology.  We convinced the district court to dismiss the case before trial on jurisdictional grounds.
  • Intematix v. Symyx Technologies (Alameda Superior Court 2006). We represented Symyx in a trade secret misappropriation suit filed by Intematix.  After we defeated Intematix’s efforts to obtain preliminary relief, the case settled on terms favorable to our client.
  • Navitaire v. easyJet Airlines and Bullet Proof Software (D. Utah 2005). We defended easyJet Airlines and BulletProof in a trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement lawsuit arising out of the alleged theft and copying of Navitaire’s reservations software. Upon the successful trial of a corresponding copyright infringement and breach of contract lawsuit, the case settled on terms favorable to our client.
  • Zions Investment Securities, Inc. v. Ruzek (Third Judicial District Court of Summit County, Utah 2005). We obtained a sweeping temporary restraining order on behalf of Zions Investment Securities, Inc., a financial services company, on the grounds that a departing employee had misappropriated trade secrets and violated the non-solicitation provision in his contract.  The defendant subsequently agreed to the entry of a stipulated injunction.
  • Configuration Data v. Northrop Grumman (Los Angeles Superior Court 2003). We successfully defended Northrop Grumman in a trade secret suit brought by a former Northrop software vendor that claimed that Northrop stole its proprietary software.  The case was dismissed after Northrop moved for summary judgment and the trial court imposed sanctions against plaintiff.
  • Research-In-Motion v. Good Technology, Inc. (Orange County Superior Court 2003). One of our partners represented Good Technology in a trade secret action filed by Research-In-Motion (“RIM”), distributor of BlackBerry wireless email solutions, against allegations that Good Technology had misappropriated RIM’s customer lists and reverse engineered part of its software for a competing solution.  After defeating RIM’s motion for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction, the matter settled on terms favorable to our client.
  • Bancorp v. Hartford (E.D. Mo. 2002). We won a jury verdict of $118.3 million and a judgment of $134 million for plaintiff Bancorp, a financial products company, in a misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of confidentiality agreement case against Hartford, a major insurance company.
  • Broadcom v. Sarnoff (C.D. Cal., 9th Cir. 2002). We obtained summary judgment in favor of our client Sarnoff, a General Electric/RCA spinoff, on trade secret misappropriation claims involving QAM modem technology.  The judgment was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.
  • 3M v. Avery Dennison (D. Minn. 2002). After Avery hired three of its scientists, 3M filed suit and spent tens of millions trying to prove its trade secret misappropriation claims, seeking a nine-figure recovery.  After we demonstrated that the claimed trade secrets were unprotectable, the case settled favorably to Avery.
  • Callidus v. Jacob Avital (Santa Clara Superior Court 2002). One of our partners defended a chief scientist at PeopleSoft against allegations of trade secret misappropriation.  The matter settled favorably.
  • Avery Dennison v. Four Pillars (N.D. Ohio 2000). A Taiwanese competitor collaborated with an Avery Dennison employee to steal trade secrets.  On behalf of Avery Dennison, we worked with the FBI and the Department of Justice to catch the thieves.  A sting operation videotaped the competitor accepting trade secrets.  The defendants were arrested that night, and served with a complaint and a temporary restraining order the next morning.  We additionally won an $80 million civil jury verdict for our client.
  • Litton v. Honeywell, 234 F.3d 358 (Fed. Cir. 2000). One of our partners represented Litton (now Northrop) in an action alleging Honeywell caused an ex-Litton employee to breach agreements obligating him to protect trade secrets.  The jury awarded Litton $1.2 billion.  The parties settled the case for $440 million.
  • PeopleSoft, Inc. v. Annuncio, Inc. (Santa Clara Superior Court 2000). One of our partners represented PeopleSoft for claims of trade secret misappropriation and breach of confidence against a competitor and several former PeopleSoft employees.  After PeopleSoft secured a temporary restraining order against the former employees and the competitor, the matter settled on terms favorable to PeopleSoft.
  • Compuware v. Serena Software (E.D. Mich 2000). One of our partners represented Compuware in a trade secret and copyright infringement suit brought against a competitor, based on access to trade secrets via customers who were under non-disclosure obligations.  The case settled favorably to Compuware.
  • 3M v. Avery Dennison (Orange County Superior Court 1999). We represented Avery Dennison when it hired a salesperson from 3M who, unbeknownst to Avery, brought 3M documents with him.  Alleging trade secret misappropriation, 3M sued both Avery and the employee.  Although the relevant documents came to light after a raid on the employee’s house, we persuaded the jury after a three-month trial that Avery had no knowledge of the employee’s activities and obtained a complete defense verdict.
  • PeopleSoft, Inc. v. Evolve Software, Inc. (Alameda Superior Court 1999). One of our partners represented PeopleSoft with respect to its assertion of claims against a competitor arising out of the alleged misuse of confidential information by former employees.  The matter settled favorably to PeopleSoft.
  • Lasergraphics, Inc. v. CalComp, Inc. (Orange County Superior Court 1999). We represented CalComp in a two-month trial involving multiple claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, and breach of contract involving the computer protocol for high-speed color printers, obtaining a directed verdict on five of six of the claims at the close of the plaintiff’s case.  Lasergraphics appealed, but ultimately abandoned its suit after our firm’s briefing in the Court of Appeal.
  • Celeritis v. Rockwell and AT&T, 150 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Representing Celeritis in a trade secrets misappropriation action involving cellular transmission of data, one of our partners ultimately won a judgment of over $70 million.
  • Litton v. Ssangyong, 109 F.3d 30 (Fed. Cir. 1997). On behalf of Litton (now Northrop), following judgment and remand on appeal, one of our partners negotiated a settlement involving an eight-figure payment and defendant’s withdrawal from the marketplace based on evidence that defendant had misappropriated exported trade secrets to make fine control radar for the F-16 fighter plane.
  • General Motors v. Lopez de Arriortua (E.D. Mich. 1997). We represented General Motors against Volkswagen and GM’s former head of sourcing for stealing secret GM documents.  Working closely with in-house lawyers from GM, we amassed devastating evidence and defeated all of Volkswagen’s jurisdictional and substantive motions.  On the eve of the Volkswagen chairman’s deposition, we obtained a $1.1 billion settlement for GM.
  • Apex Wholesale v. GameTech Int’l. (S.D.Cal. 1997). One of our partners represented GameTech International, one of the leading manufacturers of electronic gaming equipment, in defense of copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation and related claims.  The matter settled favorably to GameTech.
  • Litton v. Sundstrand and Allied Signal (C.D. Cal. 1987). One of our partners  represented Litton, now Northrop, in a trade secret case alleging a former senior employee misappropriated the production plans for a ring laser inertial navigations system.  On the first day of trial, defendants agreed to close their competing business and pay Litton an eight-figure sum.
  • Honeywell v. Litton (C.D. Cal. 1983). One of our partners represented Litton, now Northrop, in defending a trade secret case brought by Honeywell alleging Litton had won a government contract by misappropriating trade secrets. After twice successfully defeating  Honeywell’s request for injunctive relief, the case was settled by Honeywell paying the client’s attorney’s fees.

Back to Top