Federal Court Reminds Trade Secret Owners That the Statute of Limitations Isn't Everything When it Comes to Misappropriation Claims

02 June 2014 Dashboard Insights Blog

Several years after an employee leaves your company, you realize that he or she has been using confidential and proprietary information acquired from your business to compete against you. Your non-compete agreement with the employee had expired before the employee started using the information, and you know that the statute of limitations under your state’s trade secrets laws has expired. So you’re out of luck, right?

Not necessarily. In its recent decision in Aspen Technologies, Inc. v. M3 Technology, Inc., the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed judgment and an award of money damages and a permanent injunction resulting from a jury verdict on claims of trade secret misappropriation. The plaintiff, a business that sold software packages for use in the petrochemical and chemical industries, sued a former employee who was leaving for a competing business, which in turn had been formed by other former employees of plaintiff. In discovery, the plaintiff discovered that the competing business was using plaintiff’s trade secrets, in the form of software code, for its own competing products. 

The plaintiff business added the competing business as a defendant, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, as well as a claim for copyright infringement. Despite the defendant’s arguments that the three-year statute of limitations had elapsed for these claims, and despite the fact that the other former employees who had started the competing business were no longer subject to non-compete agreements when the trade secrets were used, the jury found that misappropriation had occurred. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, stating that the jury could have reasonably found that the plaintiff could not have known about the competitor’s use of trade secret code until discovery took place in litigation—which would toll the statute of limitations on the trade secret claim. The court also noted that the defendant corporation had sent letters to the plaintiff, assuring the plaintiff that it was not using the plaintiff’s trade secrets in its business, supporting a conclusion that the defendant had fraudulently concealed its misconduct.   

The takeaway here is that if you find yourself in the position above—learning that former employees are apparently using your trade secrets, years after their termination and after any non-compete language may have expired, and after the statute of limitations has apparently run—take heart, as there may still be steps you can take to address that conduct. Of course, there is a catch—this decision was based on the plaintiff being unable to timely discover the misappropriation by reasonable diligence, and by the plaintiff reasonably relying on the defendant’s denials of misconduct, so an owner of trade secrets that buries its head in the sand after an employee leaves for a competitor may not have the same success in protecting its rights.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

CMS Proposes Enhanced Scrutiny over Medicaid Supplemental Payments
20 November 2019
Health Care Law Today
The Purpose of a Corporation
November 2019
Legal News: Business Law
Should This Be a "Mobility" Industry Blog?
19 November 2019
Dashboard Insights
Data Processing Patent Eligibility: Federal Circuit Finds Claims Eligible in KPN v. Gemalto
19 November 2019
IP Litigation Current
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
Madison CLE Days
18-19 December 2019
Madison, WI
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
HFMA MA-RI Annual Compliance Update
12 December 2019
Boston, MA