Trade Secret Misappropriation Cases

Below are representative cases of DisputeSoft’s experience in Trade Secret Misappropriation.

ConnectU v. Mark Zuckerberg & The Facebook

DisputeSoft was engaged as a consulting expert by ConnectU in the matter of ConnectU LLC v. Mark Zuckerberg and The Facebook, Inc. ConnectU alleged that Zuckerberg misappropriated ConnectU’s trade secrets; specifically, its ideas for a social networking website. This highly publicized case may finally be over, with the both the California and Massachusetts U.S. District Courts dismissing the remaining claims.

The Studer Group LLC v. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation

DisputeSoft was engaged by The Studer Group in the matter of The Studer Group LLC v. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:10-cv-01957. DisputeSoft drafted memoranda demonstrating the invalidity of CCF’s copyright infringement counterclaims. DisputeSoft Managing Partner and software copyright infringement expert Jeff Parmet proffered an expert report on behalf of The Studer Group on November 18, 2013, followed by a rebuttal report on behalf of The Studer Group on December 23, 2013. Mr. Parmet gave deposition on February 7, 2014. The case settled in May 2014.

Force Protection Industries v. Protected Vehicles

DisputeSoft was engaged as a testifying expert in the matter of Force Protection Industries, Inc. v. Protected Vehicles, Inc., a case of trade secret theft involving two companies that produce armored vehicles for military use. Force Protection alleged that former executives stole confidential intellectual property before resigning from their positions and forming a rival company, Protected Vehicles.

Thermo Fisher Scientific v. Defendant

DisputeSoft was retained in December 2013 by plaintiff Thermo Fisher Scientific in connection with a trade secret misappropriation litigation. Pharmaceutical supply chain company Thermo Fisher Scientific alleged that two former employees misappropriated technical specifications and documentation for a “Clinical Trial Management System” (“CTMS”) and used these documents to develop a new CTMS, called iCTM, for Defendant.