Health
your username
January 15, 2021 On Thursday in the District of Minnesota, UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UHG), United HealthCare Services Inc. (UHS), and Optum Services Inc. filed a complaint against a former Optum employee for allegedly breaching employment agreements by leaving to work for competitor Anthem Inc. and consequently misappropriating the plaintiffs’ trade secrets.
Tricia Fringer was a “trusted and core member” of Optum’s leadership team, being “one of only five people at the organization authorized to see and approve pricing for Optum’s largest deals” and “one of less than a dozen employees with access to Optum’s confidential information across multiple segments, including … ‘bid’ and ‘win’ strategies; cost of goods sold; and pricing, underwriting, marketing, and product information,” which all are classified as company trade secrets, according to the complaint. Fringer frequently worked on the company’s national accounts clients s
Thursday, January 14, 2021
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a dismissal of trade secret claims, finding that although misappropriation of a trade secret prior to the enactment of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) does not preclude a claim arising from post-enactment or continued use of the same trade secret, the publication of a trade secret in a patent application extinguishes trade secret status.
Eli Attia; Eli Attia Architect PC v. Google LLC, et al., Case No. 19-15771 (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2020) (Wallace, J.)
Eli Attia is an architect who developed a system and method for automated design, fabrication and construction, called Engineered Architecture (EA). In 2010, Attia entered into a partnership with Google. Attia disclosed his trade secrets related to the technology to Google so that they could work together to develop a program that would implement EA. Attia executed patent assignments with Google, and a year later Google filed patent applic
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Addressing whether purported trade secret information ought to remain under seal on appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in a one-judge order that the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) provided a statutory basis that overcame the presumption of public access.
Magnesium Machine, LLC v. Terves, LLC, Case No. 20-3779 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2020) (McKeague, J.)
This case presented the issue of what part of a record may be sealed on appeal normally a routine question in litigation that was anything but routine. According to the verified complaint, Magnesium Machine discovered a particular salt-based treatment for use on oil and gas tools. According to Magnesium, in the course of litigating a patent infringement suit against one of Magnesium’s suppliers, Terves and its counsel, McDonald Hopkins, obtained information reflective of Magnesium’s alleged trade secret from a third party pursuant to subpoena. Sp
Thursday, January 7, 2021
Addressing whether purported trade secret information ought to remain under seal on appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in a one-judge order that the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) provided a statutory basis that overcame the presumption of public access.
Magnesium Machine, LLC v. Terves, LLC, Case No. 20-3779 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2020) (McKeague, J.)
This case presented the issue of what part of a record may be sealed on appeal normally a routine question in litigation that was anything but routine. According to the verified complaint, Magnesium Machine discovered a particular salt-based treatment for use on oil and gas tools. According to Magnesium, in the course of litigating a patent infringement suit against one of Magnesium’s suppliers, Terves and its counsel, McDonald Hopkins, obtained information reflective of Magnesium’s alleged trade secret from a third party pursuant to subpoena. Specifically, Magnesium cl
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), enacted in 2016, created a federal right of action for misappropriation of trade secrets. The Ninth Circuit recently addressed for the first time whether a DTSA claim may be brought against misconduct predating the enactment of the DTSA. The Ninth Circuit held that it could, so long as the misappropriation continued until after the enactment of the DTSA.
See
In
Attia, plaintiff Eli Attia developed a new architecture technology called Engineered Architecture (“EA”). In July 2010, Google approached Attia about partnering to create a program to implement EA. Attia disclosed his alleged EA trade secrets with the understanding that Google would compensate him if the program was successful. In 2011, Google allegedly filed patent applications based on the EA trade secrets. After the patents published in 2012, Google allegedly excluded Attia from the project and used