This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Charles K. Verhoeven

By Craig Anderson | Oct. 9, 2019

Oct. 9, 2019

Charles K. Verhoeven

See more on Charles K. Verhoeven

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

Verhoeven said he expects the recent surge of major trade secrets lawsuits to continue because many valuable company assets haven’t been patented and damages cannot yet be established.

“There’s been an increase in trade secrets cases that are high value,” he said. From the technology behind driverless cars to biotechnology innovations, companies often have assets that are difficult to protect because no profits have been made.

“It’s all research and development,” said the head of Quinn Emanuel’s offices in San Francisco and Redwood Shores.

Last year, he was the lead attorney for Alphabet Inc.-owned Waymo LLC, which sued Uber Technologies Inc. over allegations the ride-hailing company stole its self-driving car technology.

Verhoeven said he carefully avoided suing former Waymo engineer Anthony S. Levandowski to ensure the case would not end up in arbitration. “We wanted to be in federal court,” he said.

The case settled in the middle of trial, with Uber agreeing to give Waymo a $245 million stake in Uber. Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc., 17-CV00939 (N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 23, 2017).

In August, a San Jose federal grand jury indicted Levandowski on criminal trade secrets theft charges for the same conduct that was the subject of Verhoeven’s civil lawsuit.

This year, he is representing Array BioPharma Inc. in a lawsuit against nine former employees, most of whom left for a competitor — Loxo Oncology Inc. — on the same day in October 2018.

The departing employees and their new company sued first in Colorado federal court seeking declaratory relief. Verhoeven, representing Array, countered with a motion for a preliminary injunction and sought discovery.

In June, Chief U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the District of Colorado rejected the motion for an injunction, in part because any damages Array suffered are “speculative” because profitable drugs have yet to be developed. Verhoeven appealed that decision to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Last month, Verhoeven won a discovery ruling. Loxo Oncology Inc. et al. v. Array BioPharma Inc., 18-03062 (D. of Colo., filed Nov. 29, 2018).

Pharmaceutical giants have acquired both companies, with Pfizer Inc. adding Array while Eli Lilly and Company bought Loxo Oncology.

— Craig Anderson

#354668

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com