Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Synco Research Solutions, LLC a Nevada limited liability company; Freddie Carter, an individual; Faiz Sayed, an individual; Andrew McCoy, an individual; Reginald Walton, an individual; and Jacob Rivera, an individual; Carter's Research Associates LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; Synco Research Solutions FL, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; Synco Research Solutions MS LLC, a Mississippi limited liability company; Synco Research Solutions NV LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; Synco Research Solutions Texas LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive
Published: Nov. 4, 2022 | Result Date: Mar. 28, 2022 | Filing Date: Dec. 2, 2020 |Case number: 8:20-cv-02270-JLS-DFM Bench Decision – Permanent Injunction
Judge
Court
CD CA
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Mark D. Erickson
(Haynes & Boone LLP)
Andrea Levenson
(Haynes & Boone LLP)
Defendant
Gregory G. Brown
(Brown & Charbonneau LLP)
Mark M. Higuchi
(Brown & Charbonneau LLP)
Facts
Edwards Lifesciences is a publicly traded medical technology company specializing in research and development, including for example: designing and developing medical devices such as artificial heart valves and monitoring technologies for patients with heart disease; and designing, executing, and monitoring clinical trials. Due to the highly competitive nature of the medical device industry, Edwards required all its employees to enter into confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements. Edwards filed suit against certain former employees and the companies they formed after leaving Edwards.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the individual defendants created the defendant companies in order to compete with it, in violation of their employment agreements. Plaintiff also asserted that defendants stole plaintiff’s trade secrets and confidential information. Finally, plaintiff attested that defendants’ acts constituted violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, common law unfair competition, conspiracy, breach of contract, breach of duty of loyalty, and intentional interference with contract.
DEFENDANTS’ CONTENTIONS: Defendants disputed plaintiff’s contentions and denied allegations of any wrongdoing.
Result
The parties stipulated to a consent judgment and permanent injunction. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court ordered that defendants were permanently enjoined from generally disclosing or possessing plaintiff’s confidential information or trade secrets or assisting others to do so.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390