Deborah M. Manchester v. Sivantos GMBH, Sivantos Inc., Auralcare Hearing Centers of America, David D. Larsen, and Does 1-10, inclusive
Published: May 15, 2020 | Result Date: Aug. 2, 2019 | Filing Date: Jul. 19, 2017 |Case number: 2:17-cv-05309-ODW (JEMx) Bench Decision – Dismissal
Judge
Court
CD CA
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Eugene Rome
(Rome & Associates APC)
Brianna E. Dahlberg
(Rome & Associates APC)
John J. Eichmann
(Dovel & Luner)
Julien A. Adams
(Dovel & Luner)
Richard E. Lyon
(Dovel & Luner)
Simon C. Franzini
(Dovel & Luner )
Defendant
Yuri Mikulka
(Alston & Bird LLP)
Michael J. Newton
(Alston & Bird LLP)
Christopher L. McArdle
(Alston & Bird LLP)
H. James Abe
(Alston & Bird LLP)
Caleb J. Bean
(Alston & Bird LLP)
Wade G. Perrin
(Alston & Bird LLP)
Facts
Plaintiff, Deborah M. Manchester, Ph.D., sued hearing manufacturer defendant Sivantos GmbH and its U.S. affiliate Sivantos, Inc. for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and fraudulent misrepresentation with respect to the the tele-audiology technology Dr. Manchester invented called "HARP." This was based on a discussion between Sivantos and Dr. Manchester regarding HARP, in which Sivantos had entered into a non-disclosure agreement with Dr. Manchester.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Dr. Manchester contended that Sivantos breached the NDA and alleged that Sivantos fraudulently misrepresented that it was not working on a Bluetooth technology similar to HARP. In addition, Dr. Manchester contended that Sivantos violated California's Unfair competition law under the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: After discovering that Dr. Manchester had publicly disclosed HARP to the U.S. Copyright Office and failed to abide by the terms of the NDA, Sivantos moved for summary judgment. First, Sivantos argued that Dr. Manchester did not have a trade secret misappropriation claim on the grounds that disclosing alleged trade secrets to the U.S. Copyright Office is a public disclosure and destroys any trade secret claim. This raised a novel argument of whether deposit of material to the copyright office could be deemed public disclosure even if it did not mature into copyright registration. Second, Sivantos contended that Dr. Manchester did not follow the terms of the NDA by marking the alleged trade secrets and other confidential information as confidential pursuant to the agreement.
Damages
Dr. Manchester sought over $50 million in damages.
Result
Sivantos' motion for summary judgment was granted. The court ruled that Dr. Manchester could not establish that she had a protectable trade secret because she deposited materials to the Copyright Office and she failed to mark her information confidential as required under the NDA. The case in its entirety was dismissed with prejudice.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390