Superior Court Jury Renders $839,423 Verdict in Trade-Secrets Litigation
A jury has awarded $839,423 to LBI Inc., a small Groton business, in a trade-secrets theft case against Charles River Analytics Inc.
December 03, 2019 at 02:12 PM
4 minute read
A New London Superior Court jury has ordered Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Charles River Analytics Inc. to pay $839,423 plus punitive damages to a small Groton-based research and design and development company in a trade-secrets theft case.
In a case that examines how defendant Charles River Analytics treated, worked and possibly colluded with two former employees of plaintiff LBI Inc., the lead counsel for LBI told the Connecticut Law Tribune on Tuesday he believes the case hinged on the testimony of the presidents of the two companies.
Charles River Analytics president Karen Harper was on the stand for three days of the four-week trial, while LBI founder and president Peter Legnos testified for about five days.
"Peter came across to the jury as utterly sincere, somewhat eccentric and as a very bright victim," according to LBI counsel James Robertson Jr., of Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey. "I think Peter telling his personal story and the LBI story helped sway the jury."
Meanwhile, Robertson said Harper "was very well-prepared and almost robotic."
Representing the defense were Joshua Solomon, Barry Pollack and Phil Rakhunov of Boston-based Pollack Solomon Duffy, and James Craven from Connecticut-based Wiggin and Dana. Craven referred all comment to Solomon, Pollack and Rakhunov. None of the three Boston attorneys responded to a request for comment Tuesday,
The crux of the case—which has been litigated for more than seven years—involved former LBI employees Jared Sparks and Jay Williams, whom the government accused of stealing trade secrets from LBI to the benefit of Charles River Analytics. In July 2018, a jury agreed with prosecutors that Sparks uploaded thousands of LBI's files to his personal account with Dropbox, a cloud-based file-storage application. The government alleged that soon after joining Charles River Analytics, Sparks uploaded the material including accounting and engineering files as well as photographs related to designs and renderings used to fabricate and manufacture LBI's unmanned vehicle and buoys. The jury cleared co-defendant Williams.
Charles River Analytics, the six-person jury found, engaged in tortious interference with regard to the employ of Sparks and Williams and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
In reaching its Nov. 8 verdict after 2 1/2 days of deliberations, the jury found on all counts and awarded both compensatory and punitive damages to LBI. Charles River Analytics is expected to appeal the verdict.
Robertson said the jury got it right and that "CRA should not have hired Sparks and Williams in the first place. Karen Harper admitted that she had full knowledge of the non-compete agreements and that the two employees had full non-disclosure agreements. They hired the two men despite the non-compete agreement and they had those two employees move seamlessly into completing the work that CRA had taken from LBI."
The U.S. Navy, Robertson said, was looking into the development of underwater drones "and had made that a top Navy priority. The Navy devoted $70 million into the invention, design and testing of the drones." Charles River Analytics, Robertson said, was to do the computer analytics for the project while LBI was to design, build and test the drones.
"CRA became a competitor of LBI on this project and ended up taking its work. They got a lot of money from the Navy," Robertson said. Charles River Analytics benefited to the tune of "millions of dollars," Robertson said.
Robertson said, "There was deceit by CRA. They were pretending to be a partner, when, in fact, they were a competitor of LBI's."
Robertson said he will be filing a prejudgment remedy application seeking about $5 million in punitive damages before Judge Kim Knox.
Assisting Robertson were his colleagues Sarah Healey and Doug Balko.
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDC Judge Rules Russia Not Immune in Ukrainian Arbitration Award Dispute
2 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250