Trade secrets provide the competitive edge many businesses rely upon to retain and grow their market share.
Protecting trade secrets against misappropriation, therefore, can be mission critical. Womble Bond Dickinson lawyers have decades of experience helping clients defend trade secrets, as both courtroom advocates and strategic advisors.
In the event of a trade secret misappropriation assertion by or against our clients, we help minimize disruption to the business, while aggressively pursuing or defending our clients’ rights in court or an alternative forum, all in an effort to resolve disputes successfully and in a cost-effective manner. Clients also turn to Womble Bond Dickinson to navigate employee mobility incidents implicating trade secret concerns. Trade secrets are most at risk when an employee walks out the door with confidential information, intentionally or not. In addition to devising strategies to prevent such trade secret leaks, we direct internal corporate investigations to get to the bottom of trade secret theft accusations and guard the company’s interests.
Central to Womble Bond Dickinson's trade secrets counseling is helping companies guard and monetize their trade secrets. We advise companies on corporate policies and best practices for protection of trade secrets, and we audit trade secret assets and protection mechanisms. We also craft and negotiate non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with employees, business partners, and investors, and we perform due diligence and consummate deals involving exploitation of trade secret assets. We have represented clients in M&A, licensing agreements, business contracts, vendor relationships, and joint development agreements in which trade secrets are involved, ensuring that our clients' business interests are advanced while their sensitive information remains protected.
Our comprehensive, cross-practice approach to trade secrets includes not just intellectual property trial lawyers, but also veteran employment, privacy and data security, corporate transactions, and technology professionals.
DynaEnergetics GmbH & Co. KG et al v. Hunting Titan, Inc. et al., S.D.Tex. (4:19-cv-01615). Represented DynaEnergetics in trade secret litigation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) against a competitor over its perforating gun systems and proprietary advancements; achieved a settlement on the eve of a preliminary injunction evidentiary hearing.
Heska, Inc. v. Qorvo Biotechnologies and Rapid Diagnostics, Inc., M.D.N.C. (No. 1:19-cv-01108). Representing defendant, a semiconductor company that designs and manufactures radio-frequency systems for wireless and broadband communications applications, in a trade secrets case involving immunodiagnostic equipment technology.
Alta Devices v. LG Electronics, N.D. Cal. (No. 18-cv-404). Represented LGE in defense of Alta’s federal court trade secret action relating to thin-film solar technology. In April 2019, a Northern District of California judge ruled in favor of LGE, dismissing Alta’s principal claims of trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition in their entirety, with prejudice. The case settled thereafter.*
Inline Packaging LLC v. Graphic Packaging International LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (No. 18-3167). Earned a landmark appeals court victory for Graphic Packaging International against rival company Inline Packaging in a dispute centered around a patent for sleeves used when heating microwavable foods. The claims alleged fraud on the patent office, tortious interference with prospective business relations and existing contractual relations, sham litigation, misappropriation of trade secrets, maintenance or use of a monopoly power, and violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act in the District of Minnesota. A Minnesota federal judge dismissed Inline Packaging’s antitrust lawsuit at summary judgment in 2018, finding no evidence of patent fraud. The decision was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit in 2020.
Safety Holdings Inc. d/b/a SambaSafety and American Driving Records, Inc. v. Checkr, Inc. and Hone Data LLC d/b/a Themis Data Solutions, N.D. Cal. (No. 3:20-cv-03004). Represented plaintiff SambaSafety in trade secret litigation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) concerning its proprietary driver risk management platform. Following the successful defense of a motion to dismiss, the case settled favorably.*
Cooley, Inc. v. Carlisle Syntec, Inc. et al., D.R.I. (No. 17-cv-00084). Represented multi-billion dollar building products company as first-chair in federal trade secret litigation, achieving a pre-trial, voluntary dismissal of a competitor’s claims.
Tech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa RX LLC, E.D.Tex. (4:15-CV-00766). Represented Tech Pharmacy Services in an action against Alixa Rx and Golden Gate National Senior Care for patent, breach of contract, and misappropriation of trade secrets involving pharmaceutical storage and electronic dispensing machines. Tech Pharmacy won a jury verdict for the breach of contract/confidentiality claim, which was upheld by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.*
Qorvo, Inc. v. Vanchip Ltd., Wang, et al., M.D.N.C. (No. 1:12-cv-00967). Represented Qorvo in trade secret litigation involving power amplifier technology. Worked with United States Government to develop related criminal charges, resulting in prison time for individual defendant.
Richtek Technology Corp. et al. v. uPI Semiconductor Corp. et al., Santa Clara Superior Court (No. 2011-1-cv-192991). Represented uPI Semiconductor in defense of a California state court trade secret action relating to power management ICs. Won motion to dismiss all claims.*
Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission (No. 337-TA-698) (Enforcement Proceeding). Lead trial counsel for Respondent uPI Semiconductor in an ITC enforcement proceeding brought by Richtek Technology involving Richtek’s allegations of trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement by uPI’s imported DC-DC controllers. Following trial, appeal, and remand, the ITC’s Final Determination found that the vast majority of uPI’s accused products were not violative, and thus could not be excluded from importation or penalized.*
Co-counsel with white collar criminal defense lawyers in defense of criminal trade secret theft prosecutions.
Counseling projects for numerous clients on corporate policies and best practices for protection of trade secrets and confidential information; internal corporate investigations; and navigation of specific employee mobility situations implicating trade secret concerns, especially for high level management and engineers.
Trade secrets provide the competitive edge many businesses rely upon to retain and grow their market share.
Protecting trade secrets against misappropriation, therefore, can be mission critical. Womble Bond Dickinson lawyers have decades of experience helping clients defend trade secrets, as both courtroom advocates and strategic advisors.
Find an attorney
Key Contacts
Our Trade Secret Litigation and Counseling Attorneys
Our Trade Secret Litigation and Counseling Services
In the event of a trade secret misappropriation assertion by or against our clients, we help minimize disruption to the business, while aggressively pursuing or defending our clients’ rights in court or an alternative forum, all in an effort to resolve disputes successfully and in a cost-effective manner. Clients also turn to Womble Bond Dickinson to navigate employee mobility incidents implicating trade secret concerns. Trade secrets are most at risk when an employee walks out the door with confidential information, intentionally or not. In addition to devising strategies to prevent such trade secret leaks, we direct internal corporate investigations to get to the bottom of trade secret theft accusations and guard the company’s interests.
Central to Womble Bond Dickinson's trade secrets counseling is helping companies guard and monetize their trade secrets. We advise companies on corporate policies and best practices for protection of trade secrets, and we audit trade secret assets and protection mechanisms. We also craft and negotiate non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with employees, business partners, and investors, and we perform due diligence and consummate deals involving exploitation of trade secret assets. We have represented clients in M&A, licensing agreements, business contracts, vendor relationships, and joint development agreements in which trade secrets are involved, ensuring that our clients' business interests are advanced while their sensitive information remains protected.
Our comprehensive, cross-practice approach to trade secrets includes not just intellectual property trial lawyers, but also veteran employment, privacy and data security, corporate transactions, and technology professionals.
Need legal advice and guidance in Trade Secret Litigation and Counseling
Our team is able to help provide solutions to you and your organization. Browse through our lawyers and professional staff to find the right attorney near you
Examples of our work and how we’ve helped companies of all sizes with a wide range of challenges.
Representative Experience
DynaEnergetics GmbH & Co. KG et al v. Hunting Titan, Inc. et al., S.D.Tex. (4:19-cv-01615). Represented DynaEnergetics in trade secret litigation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) against a competitor over its perforating gun systems and proprietary advancements; achieved a settlement on the eve of a preliminary injunction evidentiary hearing.
Heska, Inc. v. Qorvo Biotechnologies and Rapid Diagnostics, Inc., M.D.N.C. (No. 1:19-cv-01108). Representing defendant, a semiconductor company that designs and manufactures radio-frequency systems for wireless and broadband communications applications, in a trade secrets case involving immunodiagnostic equipment technology.
Alta Devices v. LG Electronics, N.D. Cal. (No. 18-cv-404). Represented LGE in defense of Alta’s federal court trade secret action relating to thin-film solar technology. In April 2019, a Northern District of California judge ruled in favor of LGE, dismissing Alta’s principal claims of trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition in their entirety, with prejudice. The case settled thereafter.*
Inline Packaging LLC v. Graphic Packaging International LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (No. 18-3167). Earned a landmark appeals court victory for Graphic Packaging International against rival company Inline Packaging in a dispute centered around a patent for sleeves used when heating microwavable foods. The claims alleged fraud on the patent office, tortious interference with prospective business relations and existing contractual relations, sham litigation, misappropriation of trade secrets, maintenance or use of a monopoly power, and violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act in the District of Minnesota. A Minnesota federal judge dismissed Inline Packaging’s antitrust lawsuit at summary judgment in 2018, finding no evidence of patent fraud. The decision was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit in 2020.
Safety Holdings Inc. d/b/a SambaSafety and American Driving Records, Inc. v. Checkr, Inc. and Hone Data LLC d/b/a Themis Data Solutions, N.D. Cal. (No. 3:20-cv-03004). Represented plaintiff SambaSafety in trade secret litigation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) concerning its proprietary driver risk management platform. Following the successful defense of a motion to dismiss, the case settled favorably.*
Cooley, Inc. v. Carlisle Syntec, Inc. et al., D.R.I. (No. 17-cv-00084). Represented multi-billion dollar building products company as first-chair in federal trade secret litigation, achieving a pre-trial, voluntary dismissal of a competitor’s claims.
Tech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa RX LLC, E.D.Tex. (4:15-CV-00766). Represented Tech Pharmacy Services in an action against Alixa Rx and Golden Gate National Senior Care for patent, breach of contract, and misappropriation of trade secrets involving pharmaceutical storage and electronic dispensing machines. Tech Pharmacy won a jury verdict for the breach of contract/confidentiality claim, which was upheld by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.*
Qorvo, Inc. v. Vanchip Ltd., Wang, et al., M.D.N.C. (No. 1:12-cv-00967). Represented Qorvo in trade secret litigation involving power amplifier technology. Worked with United States Government to develop related criminal charges, resulting in prison time for individual defendant.
Richtek Technology Corp. et al. v. uPI Semiconductor Corp. et al., Santa Clara Superior Court (No. 2011-1-cv-192991). Represented uPI Semiconductor in defense of a California state court trade secret action relating to power management ICs. Won motion to dismiss all claims.*
Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission (No. 337-TA-698) (Enforcement Proceeding). Lead trial counsel for Respondent uPI Semiconductor in an ITC enforcement proceeding brought by Richtek Technology involving Richtek’s allegations of trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement by uPI’s imported DC-DC controllers. Following trial, appeal, and remand, the ITC’s Final Determination found that the vast majority of uPI’s accused products were not violative, and thus could not be excluded from importation or penalized.*
Co-counsel with white collar criminal defense lawyers in defense of criminal trade secret theft prosecutions.
Counseling projects for numerous clients on corporate policies and best practices for protection of trade secrets and confidential information; internal corporate investigations; and navigation of specific employee mobility situations implicating trade secret concerns, especially for high level management and engineers.
*Handled at a prior firm.
You might be interested in...
Featured Content
New PAIP Act Requires U.S. President to Annually Report to Congress on Foreign Nationals Involved in the Theft of Trade Secrets from the United States, with Mandatory Sanctions to Follow
This selection will switch the website from presenting information primarily about the United Kingdom to information about the United States. If you would like to switch back, you may use location selection options at the top of the page.
Contact
Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any legal matter until we authorize you to do so. To initiate a possible representation, please call one of our lawyers or staff members.
By clicking the “ACCEPT” button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that, even if you submit information that you consider confidential in an effort to retain us, our review of that information will not create an obligation on us to keep it confidential and will not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.
Please click the “ACCEPT” button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.
