Facts

Olivier Lemarie worked for Cloudmark LLC, which develops and markets cybersecurity products. He served as vice president during his time at Cloudmark, and Lemarie was involved with the company's technical development and had unfettered access to its technical documents and source code. In November 2016, Lemarie resigned from Cloudmark.

In February 2017, Lemarie began working as Chief Technology Officer for Vade Secure, Inc. During that time, using an unauthorized backup of Cloudmark's source code, Lemarie and Vade developed an anti-phishing tool.

Cloudmark and Proofpoint, Inc. filed suit against Vade Secure and Lemarie.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: The plaintiffs contended that the defendants had misappropriated their trade secrets in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act; and that the defendants had copied their source code in violation of the Copyright Act. Moreover, the plaintiffs contended that the defendants had acted knowingly and willfully, so they were liable for compensatory damages, exemplary damages, permanent injunctive relief, and a disposition order regarding copies of their copyrighted works in the defendants' possession. Finally, the plaintiffs contended Lemarie had breached the terms of his employment contract.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: The defendants denied any wrongdoing.

Damages

The court reduced the $480,000 in breach of contract damages as to Lemarie found by the jury to nominal damages of $1.

Result

After a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that Vade and Lemarie misappropriated the plaintiffs' trade secrets. Moreover, the jury found that Vade acted willfully and maliciously, but found that Lemarie had not. The jury awarded the plaintiffs approximately $14 million, representing $13.495 million for Vade's unjust enrichment and $480,000 for Lemarie breaching his employment contract, but the trial court reduced the amount Lemarie was liable for to nominal damages of just $1.

Other Information

The jury returned a finding that Lemarie did not act willfully in misappropriating some of Plaintiffs' alleged trade secrets, even as it found that Vade Secure's conduct was willful. The court denied plaintiffs' request for pre-judgment interest.