Vendavo, Inc. v. Price f AG
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:17-cv-06930
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Vendavo, Inc. v. Price f(x) AG, Judge Seeborg denied dismissal of counterclaims and denied two motions seeking injunctions.
Vendavo, Inc. and the defendants, including Price f(x) AG, were affected by the denial of the motion to dismiss and the two motions for injunctive relief.
What happened
In Vendavo, Inc. v. Price f(x) AG, the court considered Vendavo’s request to dismiss the defendants’ trade-secret counterclaims and two requests by defendants to restrict Vendavo’s litigation elsewhere.
The court found that the counterclaims were sufficiently specific at this stage, that the limitations issue required a more developed record, and that questions about protecting trade secrets and improper use should not be decided on the pleadings. It also declined to stop a related Illinois action or broadly restrict Vendavo’s pursuit of remedies in other forums.
Judge Seeborg denied all three motions: Vendavo’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims and defendants’ two motions for injunctive relief.
The detailed version
- Vendavo, Inc. v. Price f AG · No. 3:17-cv-06930
- Richard Seeborg
- Sept. 13, 2019
Background
The opinion states that the factual background had been addressed in earlier substantive orders and does not repeat it. The pending motions were Vendavo’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims and two motions by defendants seeking to prevent Vendavo from pursuing related litigation or remedies in other forums.
Motion to dismiss counterclaims
The defendants’ counterclaims involved alleged trade-secret misappropriation. Vendavo argued that the counterclaims did not identify the trade secrets with enough detail, included acts outside the statute of limitations, and failed to plausibly allege reasonable efforts to keep the information confidential or improper acquisition or use by Vendavo.
The court denied Vendavo’s motion, Docket No. 97. It acknowledged that the counterclaims were somewhat conclusory and generalized, but concluded that greater specificity could be pursued through disclosures, interrogatories, discussions between the parties, and other discovery procedures. The court also declined to decide the statute-of-limitations issue at the pleading stage because at least some alleged conduct was not plainly time-barred on the face of the counterclaims. Finally, the court held that whether defendants took reasonable measures to preserve secrecy and whether information was improperly acquired or used were not grounds for dismissal at that stage. The court noted that these issues could potentially be addressed later, including on summary judgment.
First motion for injunctive relief
Defendants asked the court to stop Vendavo from maintaining a duplicative trade-secret action in Illinois. The court denied the motion, Docket No. 124, because defendants had presented the same issue to the judge handling the Illinois case. That judge was better positioned to decide whether the Illinois action should proceed, in whole or in part, or be transferred to the Northern District of California.
Second motion for injunctive relief
Defendants also sought a broad injunction that would prevent Vendavo from pursuing additional legal remedies in other forums and limit Vendavo’s access to materials allegedly seized by legal authorities in the Czech Republic. The court denied the motion, Docket No. 133, explaining that jurisdictional and respect-for-other-courts concerns weighed against the requested relief and that defendants had not shown the injunction was necessary. The court stated that any other courts where Vendavo pursued relief could address abusive litigation and issue appropriate relief.
Disposition
Judge Richard Seeborg denied Vendavo’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims and denied both defendants’ motions for injunctive relief.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.