Source: https://www.crowell.com/Practices/Trade-Secrets/representative-engagements
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:47:23+00:00

Document:
DuPont/Kolon litigation and related investigations. After a seven-week trial, obtained a $919.9 million verdict against Kolon Industries, Inc. for Kolon’s theft of DuPont’s KEVLAR® trade secrets. The verdict is the largest contested trade secrets award in history, and also the largest jury verdict ever awarded in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The case also involved multiple criminal and foreign proceedings. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Kolon Industries, Inc., et al., (E.D. Va.).
Protecting the lifeblood of an Information Age company. Represented a leading supplier of semiconductor and optical components that enable high-speed information streaming in the communications industry in an action for breach of contract, breach of employees’ duty of loyalty, and misappropriation of trade secrets against five former employees, their new company, and its parent. We achieved a favorable but confidential settlement on the verge of trial. GigOptix v. Optomai, et al. (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara County).
Successfully defended client in $30 million suit for misappropriation. Successfully defended Enterprise Holdings in an action by an advertising agency alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of a confidentiality agreement, fraud, and other claims. Plaintiffs sought over $30 million in alleged lost profits and unjust enrichment, in addition to punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. We obtained summary judgment in favor of our client that was upheld by the Second Circuit. Sarkissian Mason, Inc. et al. v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.).
Successful Statute of Limitations Defense. Defeated plaintiff’s allegations of trade secret violations in summary judgment in an $86 million case accusing our client of misappropriating trade secrets by hiring several former employees. Successfully challenged jurisdiction, venue and the convenience of the forum, and won a transfer of the case after a four-day evidentiary hearing. Global Advanced Metals USA, Inc. v. Kemet Blue Powder Corp. (D. Nev.).
Defended former key technology executives. Defeated plaintiff’s allegations in summary judgment of raiding key technology executives and employees in a misappropriation of trade secrets case where we represented a newly formed competitor to a multi-billion dollar international conglomerate. Cabot Corp. v. Niotan, Inc. (E.D.N.Y).
Win at trial defending former employees winning contract with common customer. Represented a manufacturer of access and transport telecommunications equipment in a lawsuit alleging misappropriation of trade secrets. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief in connection with the hiring of a former employee and an award of a multi-million dollar contract from a common customer. Following a trial, a defense verdict was entered. Advanced Fibre Communications, Inc. v. Calix Networks, Inc. (Travis County, Texas).
Developing competing product. Represented Calix against a claim that it improperly solicited over 40 Alcatel employees and misappropriated trade secrets in developing a competing product. We brought a motion for a protective order to prevent discovery of Calix's trade secrets contending that Alcatel had initiated the lawsuit without sufficient evidence of misappropriation. Following over 20 depositions of former Alcatel employees limited to the circumstances under which they left Alcatel (without discovery of trade secrets), a protective order was granted. The California Court of Appeal and Supreme Court refused to overturn the order, and Alcatel later dismissed its case. Alcatel v. Calix Networks (Sonoma County Superior Court, California).
Jury verdict for software sales. Obtained jury verdict for defendants defeating claim for trade secret misappropriation by departing employees of software and business information. Expeditors Int'l v. Vastera/Ford (E.D. Mich.).
Won TRO and permanent injunction from trading company executive. Successfully pursued a preliminary injunction and ultimately won a permanent injunction against and damages from an executive who absconded with highly confidential and proprietary trading strategies and products worth over $10 million preventing the further disclosure of information. INTL FCStone, IFM v. Michael Ortiz (Illinois state court).
Obtained TRO against former sales team and head of manufacturing. Obtained a TRO to prohibit trade secrets misappropriation and employee poaching in a case involving a competitor who hired away key engineers, salespeople and the head of manufacturing. Case settled favorably after a full-day evidentiary preliminary injunction hearing. Dow Corning v. NuSil Technology, et al. (Michigan state court).
Obtained favorable settlement in secret patent trade secrets theft. Represented plaintiff in trade secret action involving magnetic pulse welding technology. Defendant secretly pursued a patent application while employed by the client, threatening to disclose the client’s trade secrets. Obtained favorable settlement on the eve of trial ensuring continued secrecy of the trade secrets. Dana Limited v. Yablochnikov (Lucas County, Ohio).
Confidentiality agreements. Represented plaintiff in successfully pursuing claims of misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of confidentiality agreements against former employees and their new company. Liquid Environmental Solutions of Texas v. U.S. Oil Recovery (Harris County, Texas).
Government Contracts. Secured a favorable settlement for BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P. in a trade secret case involving a subcontractor of a teaming partner with whom BAE partnered to work on a Vehicle Emergency Escape (VEE) Window suitable for use in the Army's M1151 vehicle. The subcontractor, Standard Bent Glass, is alleged to have misappropriated trade secrets regarding the VEE Window. BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P. v. Standard Bent Glass Corp. (W.D. Pa.).
Highly sensitive product development. Represented client in a supplier dispute relating to a highly sensitive product in development. Client's request for a TRO based on misappropriation of trade secrets and violation of non-compete clause was granted in federal court. Supplier then stipulated to injunctive relief requested during the two-day evidentiary hearing. Supplier's parallel request for TRO and injunction to require continued performance was denied after hearing in a different federal court. Anheuser-Busch v. Afa Dispensing Group, et al. (E.D. Mo. and S.D.N.Y.).
Complex trade secrets matters. Represented Ajinomoto in the Belgian chapter of the global L-Lysine-battle. Dispute involved fierce patent litigation, a complex chapter on confidential know-how, including strategic interaction between know-how and patents, complicated international jurisdiction and infringement issues, etc. Ajinomoto Co. Inc. v. Global Biochem Technology & Co. (Antwerp Court of Appeal).
Protected know-how. Represented defendant and achieved a favorable settlement in litigation initiated by plaintiff after client left plaintiff and set up its own headhunting company in the financial sector. Besides copyright and database protection, the litigation also related to allegedly protected know-how dealing with recruitment processes, selection techniques, and client development. Van Turenhoudt & Partners v. HR Attitude (Brussels Court of First Instance).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.