• About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • Oregon IP Resources

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Trade Secret

Skydiving Software Company Alleges Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Violations by Former Member

26 Monday Dec 2016

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Trade Secret

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Copyright Infringement, Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Youlee Yim You

The Complaint alleges that individual defendant Cockayne, as a former member of Plaintiff’s organization, developed enterprise software for commercial skydiving operators. Upon leaving Plaintiff’s organization in January 2016, defendant Cockayne was to return all software code and hardware. However, the software code was allegedly still used in violation of a “Withdrawal” agreement and provided to Pacific Northwest Skydiving Center, one of Plaintiff’s former clients.

The Complaint alleges both Federal and Oregon trade secrets violations as well as copyright infringement of the registered source code.

screen-shot-2016-12-26-at-4-39-30-pm

DropzoneMS, LLC v. Cockayne et al

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-02348-YY
File Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Plaintiff: DropzoneMS, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: John Mansfield of MansfieldLaw
Defendant: Steven Cockayne, Natalie Rogers, David Thorpe, Pacific Northwest Skydiving Center
Cause: Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Copyright Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Youlee Yim You

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Trailers International LLC v. Xiaofei Yang

05 Tuesday May 2015

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Trade Secret, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Conversion, Copyright Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Michael H. Simon, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Trademark Counterfeiting, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Business Practices, Unfair Competition

Vince Webb and his company, Trailers International (formerly UtilityMate), previously filed suit against Zhuhai Sharp-Group Enterprise Co. Ltd. (aka Jumbo Tools & Equipment), a Chinese trading company, for manufacturing counterfeits of its UtilityMate® and UtilitySport® trailers. Jumbo was, at one time, authorized to manufacture trailers for Webb’s company but now it is alleged that Jumbo is making and distributing counterfeits, primarily through Altocraft USA, Inc. Now, Webb is filing suit against XiaoFei Yang, president and CEO of Jumbo.

Trailers International LLC et al v. XiaoFei Yang

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-00767-SI
File Date: Monday, May 04, 2015
Plaintiff: Trailers International LLC, Vincent L. Webb
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephen J. Joncus and Xavier A. Clark of Klarquist Sparkman LLP
Defendant:XiaoFei Yang
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement, Trademark Counterfeiting, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition (Passing Off), Unfair Business Practices, Conversion, Trade Secret Misappropriation
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael H. Simon

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – Business Transitions v. Erik Pahlow et al

16 Monday Dec 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Trade Secret

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Contract, Copyright Infringement, Intentional Interference With Contract or Prospective Business Advantage, Janice M. Stewart, Litigation Update, Oregon Trade Secret Misappropriation, Permanent Injunction, Unlawful Trade Practices

This father vs. son copyright/trade secret/employment lawsuit results from the son’s desire to create a new business in competition with the father’s business. Along the way, the son (previously employed by the father’s company) has allegedly taken intellectual property, trade secrets and employees from the father’s company, all in violation of existing Confidentiality/Nondisclosure agreements and Employee policies.

Business Transitions, LLC et al v. Erik Pahlow et al

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-02168-ST
File Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Plaintiff: Business Transitions, LLC, FP Transitions, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: David P. Rossmiller of Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue LLP
Defendant: Erik Pahlow, Salena Santibanez, Resource Group, LLC, David Grau, Jr.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Oregon Trade Secret Misappropriation, Breach of Contract, Unlawful Trade Practices, Intentional Interference With Contract or Prospective Business Advantage, Permanent Injunction
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – EasyPower v. Operation Technology

22 Thursday Aug 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trade Secret

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Copyright Infringement, John Jelderks, Litigation Update, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Software

EasyPower, LLC v. Operation Technology, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-01462-JE
File Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Plaintiff: EasyPower, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: John C. Rake, Susan D. Marmaduke of Harrang Long Gary Rudnick PC
Defendant: Operation Technology, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge John Jelderks

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Repar Corporation v. Willowood USA

25 Tuesday Jun 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Trade Secret, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ann L. Aiken, Breach of Express Contract, Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract, Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Quasi-Contract/Unjust Enrichment

Here’s an interesting case…breach of a noncompete, trade secrets, trademark infringement, pesticides and even the EPA.

Court Case Number: 6:13-cv-01043-AA
File Date: Thursday, June 20, 2013
Plaintiff: Repar Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Jeff S. Pitzer, Bryan S. Geon of Pitzer Law
Defendant: Willowood USA, LLC, Brian Heinze
Cause: Breach of Express Contract, Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract, Quasi-Contract/Unjust Enrichment, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken

View this document on Scribd

Creating a Trade Secret Policy

28 Friday Dec 2012

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Oregon, Trade Secret

≈ Leave a comment

confidentialIntellectual property protection typically brings to mind the triumvirate of copyright, trademark and patent law.  However, not all of your valuable proprietary information will fall into these three categories.  Trade secret protection is an important alternative to understand as you shore up your intellectual property protection.

The precise language by which a trade secret is defined varies by jurisdiction, as do the particular types of information that are subject to trade secret protection. In Oregon, “trade secret” means information, including a drawing, cost data, customer list, formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process that: (a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.  Or. Rev. Stat. Secs. 646.461 et seq.

Some common examples of business-related information that are subject to trade secret protection:

  • Customers’ identities
  • Marketing strategy
  • Price lists
  • Identities of suppliers
  • Budgets and resource allocations
  • Salaries

All of these types of information can give you a competitive business edge…so long as they don’t fall into the hands of your competitors.  In order to maintain your trade secrets, it’s often necessary to have in place a company trade secret policy.  Such a policy should include at least the following:

  • Have all employees, contractors, outside consultants or anyone else who may be exposed to sensitive information sign a confidentiality agreement.  Consider making it a part of your employment contracts.
  • Keep sensitive material locked in a safe place, accessible only to those on a “need-to-know” basis.
  • Limit the circulation of confidential documents.
  • Clearly designate confidential documents as SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL.
  • Periodically review your trade secret policy with employees.

Your company likely has valuable, confidential information that should be protected as a trade secret.  Consider consulting a trade secret professional to help your company establish a secure trade secret policy.

Stories from the Week that Was – 10/16-10/22/11

23 Sunday Oct 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Privacy, Social Media, Trade Secret, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Facebook, Obama

Stories from the Week that Was – 10/16-10/22/11

McDonald’s sues China trademark body over logo dispute

Chinese man pleads guilty for U.S. trade secret theft

Obama announces full withdrawal from Iraq

NATO Commander Announces End to Libyan War Over Facebook

How Recruiters Use Social Networks to Screen Candidates

“The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors frequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction. This practice was useful, and is the only way many authors’ works have survived even in part.” Richard Stallman

Green Startup Sues Printing Giant in Oregon District Court

05 Wednesday Aug 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Litigation, Patent, Trade Secret

≈ Leave a comment

greenprojectlogoA local green startup firm has counter-sued a printing giant, claiming that it illegally cracked down on the right to resell its used product.

Hacienda Heights-based Green Project Inc. alleges in a lawsuit filed July 27 in U.S. District Court in Oregon that Epson America Inc. and its parent, Japan-based Seiko Epson Corp., sent a company spy into the Green Project facility to gain access to trade secrets.

The company also claims that Epson punished it and firms like it for reselling recycled Epson cartridges.

Epson, which first filed a lawsuit against Green Project and several other firms in April over alleged patent infringement, denies all charges.

“My reaction (to the allegations) is they are B.S. and designed to create a posture for Green Project … and that there’s no substance to them,” said David W. Axelrod, a lead attorney for Epson. But in its countersuit, Green Project says Epson’s infringement claims don’t stand up against the “first sale doctrine,” a legal approach that says a patent owner’s rights to intellectual property end once a particular product has been sold to the public. Green Project, a company of 13 employees, does business by “re-manufacturing” ink and toner cartridges for use on major manufacturers’ printers, including Epson’s.

The year-old company touts the service as good for the environment, since it takes discarded cartridges and puts them to new use.

“It’s not that we are looking for p.r.,” said Green Project President Joseph Wu. “Our goal is to recycle Epson’s cartridges. If we don’t, they go to landfills. We are recycling and looking to reduce e-waste, but also to make a business.”

EpsonLogoThe company thought it was doing business when Herbert W. Seitz allegedly called – using another name – looking to buy cartridges from Green Project and ultimately sell them at his Huntington Beach firm, Wu said. As part of that business, Green Project sent price lists and other secret information to Seitz, who turned out to be an Epson employee, Wu alleged, adding that within a couple of days, Seitz showed up in the company warehouse without permission.

“The issue is that when Epson did come to us, they came under false pretenses,” Wu said.

Green Project accuses Epson – one of the largest manufacturers of printers – of trade secret misappropriation and trespassing, and denies Epson’s claims of patent infringement.

But Epson’s lawyers maintain they have a case against Green Project.

Axelrod pointed to the “first sale” doctrine, adding that the doctrine of first sale does not apply in this case, because there is evidence the used cartridges were collected out of the U.S. Wu said his firm works with brokers who document that cartridges were collected in the U.S.

Wu’s company is seeking to be dropped from Epson’s original suit, and for Epson to pay damages and legal fees. It’s also looking to stop Epson from using any secrets that Seitz allegedly obtained.

Epson wants the firms named in the lawsuit to pay damages and for its patents to be enforced.

Source: SGVTribune.com

Categories

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Oregon Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 147 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Oregon Intellectual Property Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...