Source: https://dmassiplitigation.com/category/trade-secret/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:48:40+00:00

Document:
Author dmassiplitigationPosted on April 5, 2019 Categories Complaint, Contract, Saris, Trade Dress, Trade Secret, TrademarkLeave a comment on DogWatch, Inc. v. DogWatch of Sarasota, Inc. et al. (19-cv-10625).
Magnesium Elektron North America, Inc. v. St. Pierre et al. (18-cv-40207).
Magnesium Elektron (“MgE”) filed suit against Applied Chemistries, Inc., Brian St. Pierre and Mark Pellerin, accusing them of misappropriating trade secret processes for making etching additives used in the graphic arts industry. According to the complaint, St. Pierre and Pellerin both worked for U.S. Fluids, MgE’s contract manufacturer of etching additives, where they were exposed to the trade secret technology. Each executed a non-disclosure agreement with U.S. Fluids, and each was responsible at some point during their employment with maintaining the secrecy of the technology. St. Pierre now runs Applied Chemistries, who recently began marketing chemicals alleged to be substantially the same as MgE’s proprietary additives, and Pellerin is employed by Applied Chemistries. MgE further asserts that Applied Chemistries is selling photo engraving developer solutions under MgE’s RED TOP and HYRDO-SOLVE trademarks. MgE brings trade secret claims under the federal DTSA and the new Massachusetts trade secrets statute, as well as trademark infringement and unfair competition claims, and claims under 93A.
Author dmassiplitigationPosted on December 19, 2018 Categories Complaint, Trade Secret, TrademarkLeave a comment on Magnesium Elektron North America, Inc. v. St. Pierre et al. (18-cv-40207).
B Luxe, Inc. v. B Luxe Aesthetics LLC et al. (18-cv-11988).
B. Luxe, a Medway hair salon, accuses Belmont’s B Luxe Aesthetics and Bianca Jacqueline Paraison of infringing its registered “B. LUXE” trademark in connection with hair and skin products and services. While the complaint does not clarify, it seems that Ms. Paraison is the owner of B Luxe Aesthetics. In addition to federal trademark and unfair competition claims, B. Luxe brings counts for state and common-law trademark infringement and unfair and deceptive trade practices under 93A.
Author dmassiplitigationPosted on September 24, 2018 Categories Complaint, Trade Secret, Unfair business practiceLeave a comment on B Luxe, Inc. v. B Luxe Aesthetics LLC et al. (18-cv-11988).
In August, Governor Baker signed a new law governing trade secrets, broadening the types of information that can qualify as a trade secret and setting up protections for trade secrets during litigation. By the passage of this law, Massachusetts joins the vast majority of states in adopting the Uniform Trade Secrets law. Governor Baker also signed a law placing significant restrictions on non-compete clauses in employee agreements, including limits on scope and time and requirements that an ex-employee be compensated during the time the former employee is restricted. A summary of these laws can be found here.
Judge Saylor granted in part SiOnyx’s renewed motion to compel in this patent infringement, correction of inventorship, and breach of contract case. SiOnyx had entered into an agreement with Hamamatsu to explore a possible business relationship surrounding laser-textured infrared-sensing silicon photonic devices. The business relationship never came to fruition, and Hamamatsu subsequently applied for patents directed to similar technology. A discovery dispute arose over whether SiOnyx could obtain information on products that were textured by some means other than a laser, with Hamamatsu taking the position that the infringement contentions did not accuse such products and the former SiOnyx founder now working for Hamamatsu did not contribute to the invention of non-laser-textured devices. SiOnyx’s initial motion to compel was denied without prejudice, because at the time there was insufficient evidence to support a charge of infringement; since then, SiOnyx was able to develop sufficient information that the products infringe, and that an offer for sale of the accused products has been made that, if accepted, would generate significant sales. Judge Saylor found that SiOnyx’s evidence related to the breach of contract and use of confidential information claims (that the Hamamatsu engineers who were exposed to this information developed the non-laser-textured products) was insufficient to overcome the significant differences in the resulting textures that negate an inference that they were developed using SiOnyx’s confidential information. Because the motion was granted only with respect to the patent claims, Hamamatsu was compelled to produce information relating only to U.S. sales or imports.
Author dmassiplitigationPosted on August 22, 2018 Categories Contract, discovery, Motion to Compel, Patent, Saylor, Trade SecretLeave a comment on SiOnyx, LLC et al.v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. et al. (15-cv-13488).
Desktop Metal, Inc. v. Markforged, Inc. et al. (18-cv-10524).
The patent claims of this multi-claim lawsuit surrounding 3-D metal printing were bifurcated, and a jury trial on the patent claims was held in late July. The jury returned a verdict finding the two asserted patents valid but not infringed. The remaining trade secret, breach of contract, and unfair competition claims will be tried at a later date.
Author dmassiplitigationPosted on August 13, 2018 Categories Contract, Patent, Trade Secret, Unfair business practice, YoungLeave a comment on Desktop Metal, Inc. v. Markforged, Inc. et al. (18-cv-10524).

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