Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Pemco and Boeing entered into a contractual "teaming arrangement" to bid for a 2008 Air Force contract, which included a master agreement, a work share agreement, and a non-disclosure agreement. The relationship soured, leading Pemco to sue Boeing for breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation under the Missouri Trade Secrets Act. The district court initially dismissed the trade secrets claim as time-barred but allowed the breach of contract claims to proceed, resulting in a jury awarding Pemco $2,132,038 in direct damages.On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the trade secrets claim, holding that the Missouri statute of limitations applied, not Alabama's. After remand, Pemco filed a new complaint asserting only the trade secrets claim. The district court dismissed this claim, concluding that the contractual limitation of liability provision barred all additional damages since Pemco had already recovered the maximum amount allowed for breach of contract.The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and held that the limitation of liability provision in the master agreement applies to Pemco’s trade secrets claim, barring most categories of damages, including incidental, punitive, and consequential damages. However, the court found that the provision does not bar recovery for unjust enrichment, which Pemco had alleged. The court noted that unjust enrichment damages are distinct from the direct, out-of-pocket damages Pemco had already recovered and are not categorically barred by the limitation provision.The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Pemco’s trade secrets claim and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Pemco to pursue recovery based on Boeing’s alleged unjust enrichment. The court denied Pemco’s request to reassign the case to a different district judge. View "Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc. v. Boeing Company, The" on Justia Law

In 2008, the plaintiff, ams-OSRAM USA Inc. (formerly Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. or TAOS), sued Renesas Electronics America, Inc. (formerly Intersil Corporation) in the Eastern District of Texas. TAOS alleged patent infringement and state-law claims of trade secret misappropriation and breach of a confidentiality agreement related to ambient-light sensors. The patent claim is no longer at issue. TAOS claimed that Intersil used confidential information disclosed during merger discussions to develop competing products.The district court entered a judgment in 2015 based on a jury verdict, awarding TAOS damages for trade secret misappropriation but not for breach of contract, deeming the latter duplicative. In 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed Intersil’s liability for trade secret misappropriation on a narrower basis, vacated the monetary award, and remanded for further proceedings. The court also vacated the judgment denying contract damages as duplicative.On remand, the district court held additional proceedings, including a new jury trial. The court awarded TAOS $8,546,000 in disgorged profits for trade secret misappropriation, $17,092,000 in exemplary damages, and reasonable royalties for breach of contract totaling $6,637,693. The court also awarded prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees. Both parties appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings on the trade secret and contract claims, including the disgorgement and exemplary damages awards. However, the court reversed the finding that the trade secret became properly accessible in January 2006, determining the correct date to be February 28, 2005. The court affirmed the 26-month head-start period and the inclusion of profits from sales to Apple for the iPod Touch in the disgorgement award. The court vacated the prejudgment interest awards and remanded for further consideration of the appropriate accrual dates for interest on sales occurring after the complaint was filed. View "AMS-OSRAM USA INC. v. RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. " on Justia Law

Jason and Kacie Highsmith hired Shelter, LLC to manage a home renovation project and later contracted with Design Gaps, Inc. to design and install cabinets and closets. The contracts required arbitration for disputes but did not specify completion dates. Design Gaps failed to meet multiple promised deadlines, leading the Highsmiths to terminate the contracts and hire another company. The Highsmiths shared Design Gaps' copyrighted drawings with the new contractor. They then filed for arbitration, alleging breach of contract and other claims, while Design Gaps counterclaimed for various issues, including copyright infringement.The arbitrator held a three-day hearing, during which the Highsmiths presented multiple witnesses, while Design Gaps only presented David Glover. The arbitrator found in favor of the Highsmiths, awarding them damages and attorney’s fees, and denied Design Gaps' counterclaims, including the copyright claim, citing fair use and lack of evidence for copyright registration.Design Gaps petitioned the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina to vacate the arbitration award, arguing the arbitrator disregarded the law and failed to issue a reasoned award. The district court denied the petition and confirmed the arbitration award, also granting the Highsmiths' motion for attorney’s fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the appeal, citing lack of federal jurisdiction based on the precedent set in Friedler v. Stifel, Nicolaus, & Co., which held that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over motions to vacate arbitration awards unless there is an independent basis for federal jurisdiction beyond the Federal Arbitration Act. The court concluded that the petition did not meet this requirement. View "Design Gaps, Inc. v. Shelter, LLC" on Justia Law

FlightSafety International Inc. (FlightSafety) supplied the U.S. Air Force with commercial technical data under subcontracts awarded by CymSTAR, LLC. The data included restrictive markings, which the Air Force challenged. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) determined that the restrictive markings were improper under applicable statutes and regulations, leading FlightSafety to appeal.The Board found that the restrictive markings placed by FlightSafety on the technical data were improper. The Board concluded that the government had unrestricted rights to the data, as it was necessary for operation, maintenance, installation, or training (OMIT data). The Board also determined that the government could challenge the restrictive markings under the Validation Clause, which was not limited to challenges based on the funding source of the data.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Board's decision. The court held that the government had unrestricted rights to the OMIT data and that the restrictive markings placed by FlightSafety contradicted these rights. The court also held that the government could challenge the restrictive markings under the Validation Clause, which was not limited to challenges based on the funding source of the data. The court found that the restrictive markings, including the terms "proprietary" and "confidential," as well as the requirement for written authorization, were impermissible as they contradicted the government's unrestricted rights. The court also found that the copyright notice in the markings was misleading and contradicted the government's rights. View "FLIGHTSAFETY INTERNATIONAL INC. v. AIR FORCE " on Justia Law

Aquarian Foundation, Inc., a non-profit religious organization, alleged that Bruce Lowndes infringed on its copyrights by uploading spiritual teachings of its late founder, Keith Milton Rhinehart, to various websites. Lowndes claimed he had a license from Rhinehart, granted in 1985, to use the materials. Rhinehart passed away in 1999, bequeathing his estate, including the copyrights, to Aquarian.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted partial summary judgment, confirming that Rhinehart's copyrights were properly transferred to Aquarian via his will. After a bench trial, the court ruled against Aquarian on its claims of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and false designation of origin. The court found that Rhinehart created the works as his own, not as works for hire, and that he had validly licensed them to Lowndes. The court also determined that Lowndes did not breach the licensing agreement and that Aquarian could not terminate the license under 17 U.S.C. § 203(a). The court denied attorneys’ fees to both parties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings that Rhinehart’s works were not created as works for hire, that he validly licensed the works to Lowndes, and that Lowndes did not breach the licensing agreement. The court also affirmed the decision not to award Lowndes attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s determination regarding the termination of the license, holding that Aquarian’s termination letter in May 2021 was effective. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address any infringement that may have occurred after the license termination, as well as the denial of injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act. View "AQUARIAN FOUNDATION, INC. V. LOWNDES" on Justia Law

Kevin Lavery, an ophthalmologist, invented a vision screening device and patented it. He entered into an agreement with Pursuant Health, a company developing vision screening kiosks, to transfer his patent in exchange for royalties on the sales of these kiosks. Lavery's patent expired in May 2021, and Pursuant Health ceased paying royalties. Lavery sued Pursuant Health, seeking a declaration that the royalty payments should continue indefinitely, damages for breach of the Contribution Agreement, and damages for unjust enrichment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of Pursuant Health, ruling that the expiration of Lavery's patent rendered the royalty agreement unenforceable. Lavery appealed the decision, challenging the grant of summary judgment on his breach of contract claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the royalty provision in the Contribution Agreement was unenforceable after the expiration of Lavery's patent. The court found that the agreement did not specify any non-patent contributions that would justify continuing the royalty payments beyond the patent's expiration. The court also noted that the royalty was based on the sales of kiosks that incorporated Lavery's patent, and thus, the royalty provision improperly extended beyond the patent's 20-year term. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Pursuant Health. View "Lavery v. Pursuant Health, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two companies, Plaintiff Fuel Automation Station, LLC, and Defendant Energera Inc., both of which operate in the fuel industry and hold patents related to automated fuel delivery equipment. The conflict arose after Defendant, despite agreeing not to sue Plaintiff for patent infringement, initiated lawsuits against Plaintiff’s affiliated entity and subcontractor for using Plaintiff’s equipment, alleging infringement of a Canadian patent (the 567 Patent).The United States District Court for the District of Colorado initially reviewed the case. The court found that the covenant not to sue included the relevant parties but was ambiguous regarding whether it covered the 567 Patent. The court applied ordinary rules of contract construction and the patent exhaustion doctrine, which led to the conclusion that the covenant did protect downstream users of Plaintiff’s equipment. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on this basis. However, it found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the 567 Patent was included in the Patent Rights defined in the agreement, leading to a jury trial. The jury determined that the Patent Rights did cover the 567 Patent and that Defendant had breached the covenant not to sue.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s rulings. It held that the covenant not to sue did indeed extend to downstream users under the patent exhaustion doctrine, meaning Defendant could not sue Plaintiff’s customers for using the equipment. Additionally, the appellate court agreed with the district court and the jury that the Patent Rights included the 567 Patent, thus supporting the finding that Defendant breached the covenant by suing Plaintiff’s affiliated entity and subcontractor. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiff. View "Fuel Automation Station v. Energera" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, sued a former employee, the defendant, for breaching a noncompete agreement, violating the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), and breaching a common-law duty of confidentiality. The defendant, who had signed a noncompete agreement as a condition of continued employment, later established his own floor coating business and used the plaintiff’s proprietary information to develop competing products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant also assisted competitors in developing their products.In a separate but related case, the trial court found the noncompete agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration and ruled that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. The court also determined that a payment made to the defendant after his resignation was severance pay, not compensation for reaffirming the noncompete agreement. Based on these findings, the trial court in the present case granted summary judgment for the defendant, applying collateral estoppel to preclude further consideration of the issues.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court had incorrectly determined the noncompete agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment on the breach of the noncompete agreement claim and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the agreement was supported by adequate consideration. The court upheld the trial court’s findings that the severance payment was not consideration for reaffirming the noncompete agreement and that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. These rulings were binding in the present case. The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part, with further proceedings required to determine the enforceability and potential breach of the noncompete agreement. View "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a developer and manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, sued several individual and corporate defendants for misappropriation of trade secrets, among other claims. The key individual defendant, S, was a former employee who developed a product called Poly-Crete for the plaintiff. After resigning, S started his own business and developed similar products, allegedly using the plaintiff’s trade secrets. The plaintiff claimed that S and other defendants, including companies that tested and used S’s products, misappropriated its trade secrets.The trial court conducted a bench trial in three phases. In the first phase, the court found that the plaintiff’s formulas for Poly-Crete and other products were trade secrets but ruled that the noncompete agreement S signed was unenforceable due to lack of consideration. The court also found that the plaintiff’s common-law confidentiality claim was preempted by the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA).In the second phase, the court found that S and some defendants misappropriated the plaintiff’s trade secrets to create products like ProKrete and ProSpartic. However, it ruled that other defendants, including Indue, Krone, ECI, and Merrifield, did not misappropriate the trade secrets as they did not know or have reason to know about the misappropriation. The court also granted attorney’s fees to Krone and ECI, finding the plaintiff’s claims against them were made in bad faith.In the third phase, the court ordered the defendants who misappropriated the trade secrets to disgorge profits and enjoined them from using the trade secrets. The court also sanctioned the plaintiff for attempted spoliation of evidence by its president, F, who tried to remove incriminating photos from the company’s Facebook page during the trial.The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on most issues but reversed the judgment regarding the enforceability of the noncompete agreement and the standard for determining misappropriation. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these issues. View "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy" on Justia Law

Dyax Corporation performed research for Ares Trading S.A. and licensed patents to Ares, including some held by Cambridge Antibody Technology (CAT Patents). Ares used Dyax’s research to develop a cancer drug, Bavencio, and agreed to pay royalties to Dyax based on the drug’s sales. The royalty obligation outlasted the lifespan of the CAT Patents. The District Court held that Ares’ royalty obligation was not unenforceable under Brulotte v. Thys Co., which prohibits royalties that extend beyond a patent’s expiration.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware found that Ares’ royalty obligation did not violate Brulotte because it was not calculated based on activity requiring the use of inventions covered by the CAT Patents after their expiration. The court characterized the royalties as deferred compensation for Dyax’s pre-expiration research. Additionally, the court noted that Ares’ royalty obligation could run until the latest-running patent covered in the agreement expired, which included patents other than the CAT Patents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Third Circuit held that Ares’ royalty obligation was not calculated based on activity requiring post-expiration use of the CAT Patents, and thus, Brulotte did not apply. The court emphasized that the royalties were based on sales of Bavencio, which did not require the use of the CAT Patents after their expiration. The court also rejected Ares’ argument that Dyax violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, noting that Ares received all the benefits promised under the agreement. The court concluded that Dyax did not breach any obligations under the agreement, and Ares’ royalty obligation remained enforceable. View "Ares Trading SA v. Dyax Corp" on Justia Law