Michael W. De Vries

Trade secrets and patent law partner De Vries has been with Kirkland for a decade. He was recruited to the firm by Kirkland’s Adam R. Alper; both had worked at Latham & Watkins LLP and they frequently teamed up on high-stakes litigation.

“Adam suggested that we should both work at the same firm, and although I was happy at Latham, this has turned out exactly as I had hoped,” De Vries said.

In June 2021, De Vries added to a pair of massive dollar wins last year with a $30 million jury verdict for client LivePerson Inc., a messaging platform that offers chat services to website visitors, on trade secrets misappropriation, copyright, false advertising and patent infringement claims against a rival. LivePerson Inc. v. [24]7.ai Inc., 4:17-cv-01268 (N.D. Cal., filed March 10, 2017).

LivePerson alleged the defendant used its relationships with LivePerson’s customers to improperly access its online chat predictive technology and used LivePerson’s trade secrets to create a competing chat platform.

De Vries, who tried the case in partnership with Alper, said the defendant ended the trial with a new claim during closing argument that LivePerson did not actually own the trade secrets at issue; instead, they belonged to its customers. “I had 19 minutes left for rebuttal to explain the contract, our investment in the software and how common sense showed otherwise,” said De Vries, who had to make his case through a mask at the live jury trial. The jury agreed, returning after a day of deliberations with a verdict for his client. “We were sitting on pins and needles,” he said.

He’s currently in stalled litigation for advanced battery systems client Inventus Power Inc. and its Chinese subsidiary against a Chinese competitor that allegedly hired former Inventus executives and senior engineers who downloaded and brought with them extensive trade secrets. Inventus Power Inc. v. Shenzhen Ace Battery Co. Ltd., 1:20-cv-03375 (N.D. Ill., filed June 8, 2020).

“This one is geopolitically interesting, because the defendant has raised Chinese laws that it says prohibit it from providing U.S.-style discovery,” De Vries said. “We won a TRO and a motion to expedite discovery—and then the defendant changed counsel and argued it didn’t have to provide any discovery at all. The case has ground to a halt for almost a year. It’s a travesty.” A magistrate judge is pondering the impasse.

Last year’s big wins involved a $855 million software-related trade secrets jury verdict for Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. against a rival that had originally made a $6 billion claim. And there was a $765 million win for Motorola Solutions Inc. with similar allegations against a competitor. Both cases are on appeal. Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. et al. v. The Trizetto Group Inc. et al., 1:15-cv-00211 (S.D. N.Y., filed Jan. 12, 2015); Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd., et al., 1:17-cv-01973 (N.D. Ill., filed March 14, 2017).

—John Roemer