Connecticut Business Litigation Blog : Connecticut Business Lawyer & Attorney : N. Kane Bennett : Raymond & Bennett Law Firm : Hartford, Middletown, Glastonbury

Is it David v. Goliath or a patent troll case?  Connecticut based XPRT Ventures, LLC has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Delaware (download lawsuit here) against eBay for $3.8 billion dollars over the technology for automating and securing online payment portals. The suit was also filed against eBay's PayPal, Bill Me Later, Shopping.com, and StubHub.

In the suit, XPRT alleges that PayPal and others have used its systems and methods for electronic auction and e-commerce transactions subject to XPRT's six U.S. patents since at least 2002.  XPRT also alleges that eBay received confidential information in 2001 from the inventors and misappropriated information from patent applications assigned to XPRT. XPRT alleges a loss to date of $600 million with expected future losses of $3.2 billion.

The suit is for willful patent infringement, but at its heart is XPRT's allegation that eBay stole XPRT's trade secrets obtained from patent applications to use in eBay's own patent applications and for use by eBay in multiple platforms for PayPal and others.  The complaint states that XPRT passed on confidential information related to its patents to eBay in 2001 with the expectation of compensation should eBay be interested in the technology. The complaint alleges that the confidential information included how eBay could benefit from acquiring PayPal's payment platform.  Instead, eBay allegedly used the information provided in support of its own patent applications and online uses for PayPal and others.

The suit has been summarized and covered by various online media with some support and others criticizing the suit. Read here for the Reuters report on eBay suit and PCWorld's story.  Another good summary is the post today from Rajeev Saxena of Trends Updates. The post includes the following statement from XPRT's Connecticut based counsel, Steven Moore: 

This involves a trade secret theft, along with sheer patent infringement.  It is bad enough to take someone's technology, but it is a bit much to use it in your own patent application. 

Attorney Moore's firm also issued a press release that states, in part:

 In a nutshell, XPRT asserts eBay unfairly stole the idea and method of payment used in eBay's PayPal and similar electronic payment systems.

Techdirt, a technology blog, came out swinging and criticized the suit as "another patent lawsuit against a big company for doing something obvious, filed by a company that appears to exist solely for the purpose of suing a company that actually does stuff."   Mike also includes in his post some additional details about the history of XPRT's trail of patent rejections.  His take is basically that the case is a patent troll stick up suit.    For a good and balanced definition of "troll patent" or "patent troll" read this post form PatentlyO, the nations leading patent law blog.

Erik Sherman, a freelance writer, had a somewhat different take in his blog post.  After a providing a detailed summary of his own investigation and fact finding, Erik wrote that "this is not a simple case of a troll finding an obscure patent that could be stretched to cover an intended target."  He also focused on another case where eBay was alleged to have engaged in similar unethical behavior and the complications potentially created for Meg Whitman (eBay CEO at the time) currently running for California governor.

Thus far, eBay only issued a short statement denying that there is any merit to the suit. What's your take, Patent Trolling or David v. Goliath?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Previously, I have posted about non-compete agreements and the duty of loyalty for employees.  Many times, businesses do not have written contracts to protect confidential and proprietary information from not only competitors and vendors, but also their own employees.  Without a contract, the common law of Connecticut concerning breach of fiduciary duty is one of the ways attorneys can seek to protect business clients against improper use of confidential information.

Another method for attorneys to seek to protect their clients' confidential information stored on a computer system or network is through the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).  The CFAA is largely a criminal statute, but is being used more frequently in civil cases on behalf of businesses faced with loss or theft of confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets.   The CFAA, 18 U.S.C. 1030, essentially provides for civil liability for unauthorized access to protected computers with intent to defraud or cause damage.  There are civil enforcement provisions that allow private actions for recoverable loss related to prohibited conduct if a series of factors can be proved in court.

Recently, Peter J. Toren wrote an excellent article in the New York Law Journal  where he detailed methods in which the CFAA might be useful for attorneys to protect client trade secrets and other confidential information.   Peter listed the six factors necessary for proof of damages.  Peter also noted some of the limitations of the CFAA when it comes to employee theft of trade secrets and described the narrow and broad views taken by different courts when interpreting improper access of a protected computer without authorization. Peter further provides some useful tips for businesses on how to construct a policy in light of the different court interpretations of improper access. 

Lee Berlik, publisher of the Virginia Business Litigation Blog, also has a recent post about the series of hurdles necessary for attorneys to prove loss or damages under the CFAA.  Lee's post describes a threshold of $5,000 in value that must fit into the categories of potential loss defined in the CFAA.  Similar to Peter's article, Lee also describes how a case was unsuccessful in court because of insufficient facts to show loss under the CFAA.

In Connecticut federal courts, the reported cases under CFAA, largely have been unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, many of which Peter's article details.  Some cases were dismissed for failing to meet damages thresholds (Register.com v. Verio, 356 F.3d 393 (2004)) , while another case was dismissed because the facts were insufficient for unauthorized access (Cenveo, Inc. v. Rao, 659 F. Supp. 2d 312 2009)).   However, in a recent case, in the federal district court, Judge Vanessa Bryant issued an order of sanctions and for production of electronic devices for forensic inspection in a case based, in part, and the CFAA. (Genworth Financial Wealth Mngmt. Inc., v. McMullan). 

The takeaway here is that the CFAA provides another potential basis for a business to protect its confidential and proprietary information when the information resides on a computer system or network.  Of course, there are a series of factors that must be met before liability can be established.  Some of these factors may not apply and eliminate the CFAA as a method of recovery as we have seen in several reported cases.  However, the CFAA should be considered and evaluated in any case involving unauthorized access of confidential information through a computer system as it provides an additional basis for potential recovery.  Also, advanced planning with sound internal policies might provide a business with a better chance of success under the CFAA.

I will do a post soon on another statute, Connecticut's Computer Crime Act, that may provide additional remedies for improper access of a computer system or network.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Following my post about the Dur-A-Flex v. Laticrete jury verdict, I received a statement from Laticrete's CEO, David Rothberg.  You can read the full statement here.   Mr. Rothberg stated that he is "extremely disappointed in the verdict." He added that the jury finding against Laticrete was "absolutely baseless."  He left no secret as to Laticrete's post trial plans as he says the company intends a vigorous defense on appeal.

Trial counsel for Laticrete, Elizabeth Stewart, confirmed to me today that Laticrete does expect to appeal.  She commented that no decisions have been made yet on which issues Laticrete will raise on appeal.  Attorney Stewart had no further comments on the case.   

One of the most intriguing aspects to the appeal in this case is that Judge Eveleigh presided over the trial.  Judge Eveleigh has a very good reputation as a trial court judge.  In addition, he is now set to take a seat on the Connecticut Supreme Court.  I do not know yet what potential grounds might exist for the appeal, but I can say it seems very likely Judge Eveleigh considered the potential appellate issues in this case very closely.   

Stay tuned.  I expect there will be additional posts on this case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After an eight week jury trial in Waterbury Superior Court, an East Hartford based flooring solutions company,Dur-A-Flex, has been awarded 50.5 million dollars in damages for the misuse of its trade secrets by Laticrete International, a Bethany based multinational corporation.  Laticrete was a former purchaser of Dur-A-Flex's colored sand products.  The jury found that the Laticrete misappropriated Dur-A-Flex's trade secrets for the colored sand and awarded 43.7  million dollars in damages.  After the jury verdict, Judge Dennis Eveleigh awarded Dur-A-Flex more than 5 million dollars for attorney's fees in a written decision (download here).   He also conditioned Laticrete's future use of Dur-A-Flex's technology on payment of royalty fees.

The case was brought back in 2006 on the Complex Litigation Docket in Waterbury  (Access court docket here). Dur-A-Flex was represented by Lawrence Rosenthal and Fletcher Thomson from Rogin Nassau's Hartford office.  Laticrete was represented by Elizabeth Stewart from Murtha Cullina's New Haven office.  

Dur-A-Flex supplied color sand to Laticrete for use in Laticrete's grout products.  Laticrete was the only customer of Dur-A-Flex for the sand product.  Laticrete at some point stopped buying the colored sand from Dur-A-Flex and started making an identical sand product.  Dur-A-Flex claimed that Laticrete was, if fact, using Dur-A-Flex's manufacturing process to make the sand.    The jury agreed with Dur-A-Flex and found that Laticrete violated Connecticut's Uniform Trade Secrets Act. 

Attorney Rosenthal commented on the verdict and stated he was "certain that Dur-A-Flex had been significantly damaged by Laticrete's improper and unauthorized use of its technology."  He believed the verdict was the largest ever for a trade secret case in Connecticut. 

I also believe this is the largest jury verdict in Connecticut history for a trade secret case.  Additionally, Connecticut case law is fairly sparse when it comes to significant trade secret cases.  I expect that the Dur-A-Flex case will impact trade secret law in Connecticut for years to come.  In particular, not only the amount of the award, but Judge Eveleigh's written decision on awarding future royalties and attorney's fees, which included a 10% contingency success fee.   Judge Eveleigh also issued a post-judgment order permitting Dur-A-Flex to attach the assets of Laticrete. It should be noted that Judge Eveleigh will become a justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court on June 1, 2010.   As such, I expect that his decision will carry more weight on these issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link