Proofpoint, Inc. v. Vade Secure, Incorporated

Background

Proofpoint and Cloudmark LLC sued Vade Secure, Incorporated, Vade Secure SASU, and Olivier Lemarié. Plaintiffs alleged that Cloudmark and Vade compete in developing and marketing cybersecurity products. They further alleged that Lemarié, formerly a Cloudmark vice president, had access to Cloudmark’s technical documents and source code before leaving Cloudmark and later becoming Vade’s chief technology officer.

Plaintiffs asserted one federal claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and four state-law breach-of-contract claims. They alleged that Lemarié disclosed Cloudmark’s trade secrets to Vade without permission and that Vade used the information to develop new products.

The Motion

Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, an extraordinary temporary remedy, barring defendants from using Cloudmark’s alleged trade secrets and requiring defendants to return the information and materials derived from it. The court’s order also notes that the motion included a request for expedited discovery, but the ruling’s analysis addressed whether plaintiffs had shown a sufficient basis for preliminary injunctive relief.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs had to show a likely chance of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without an injunction, that the balance of hardships favored them, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. Alternatively, they could show serious questions on the merits together with a sharply favorable balance of hardships, likely irreparable harm, and public interest.

Court’s Analysis

For a trade-secret-misappropriation claim, the plaintiff must specifically identify the alleged trade secrets and provide evidence that they exist. Plaintiffs described the alleged secrets generally as source code, functionality, usability, implementation details, product architecture, and combinations of technical elements relating to Cloudmark’s MTA and Trident products.

The court found those descriptions insufficient. Plaintiffs did not identify a document in the record that specifically identified the claimed source-code secrets. The court also found that plaintiffs had not provided evidence identifying which aspects of the claimed product architecture and combinations of elements were actually trade secrets. The court noted that some features plaintiffs described were included in publicly filed documents or materials distributed to Cloudmark customers, and plaintiffs did not assert that those features themselves were trade secrets.

Because the present record did not sufficiently identify the claimed trade secrets, the court held that plaintiffs had not shown either a likely chance of success on the merits or serious questions going to the merits. The court therefore did not address the remaining preliminary-injunction requirements.

Disposition

The court’s order states: plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby DENIED. The opinion does not state that the underlying claims were dismissed or finally resolved.