Facts

In the 1990s, defendant Leif Hauge founded plaintiff Energy Recovery Inc., maker of ceramic pressure exchangers used in seawater reverse osmosis desalination. In 2000, Hauge left the company and soon thereafter sold out his financial interest in the company and transferred any interest he had in intellectual property relating to the ceramic pressure exchangers to Energy Recovery as part of a prior lawsuit.

Plaintiff filed a suit against defendants claiming Hauge hired two of its employees to work for his new company while still working at Energy Recovery.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff claimed that in 2010, while developing ceramic pressure exchangers for his new company, defendant Isobaric Strategies, secretly hired two employees of Energy Recovery while they were still employed with Energy Recovery. Neither employee sought or obtained Energy Recovery's permission to simultaneously work for a competitor and they both denied working for Isobaric Strategies when asked by their supervisors and co-workers. When Energy Recovery learned of the concurrent employment with an emerging competitor, it filed suit.

Plaintiff asserted multiple causes of action against the Defendants including breach of employment and confidentiality agreements, intentional interference with those agreements, breach of the duty of loyalty, inducing the breach of the duty of loyalty, intentional deceit, misappropriation of trade secrets, and unfair competition.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that most of the claimed trade secrets could be observed, measured or reverse engineered; that others were too vague to be trade secrets; and that no trade secrets were used by defendants.

Result

Defense verdict on claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, breach of duty of loyalty, inducement of breach of duty of loyalty, and conspiracy. Verdict for the plaintiff on the intentional deceit, and breach of employment and confidentiality agreements.

Other Information

Plaintiff submitted a memorandum of cost, which was not opposed. Defendant's motion for attorneys' fees per Civil Code Section 3426.4 is pending. FILING DATE: April 15, 2011.

Deliberation

two days

Poll

12-0 on special verdict questions pertaining to all of the above claims

Length

14 days