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.

Intellectual Property
Trade Secret Misappropriation

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

Otis D. Wright II

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Carole E. Handler

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.


#134505

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

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