Huawei Litigation Ends in Take-Nothing Judgment for Both Sides
"He came over from China nearly three decades ago and became an American citizen. One of the reasons he did that is to pursue the dream of being an entrepreneur and inventor. They tried to stop him and effectively crush that dream," said Tyz Law Group founder Ryan Tyz.
June 27, 2019 at 05:15 PM
4 minute read
After a 17-day jury trial, Chinese tech giant Huawei Technologies Co. will walk away with nothing in its suit against a California inventor and his startup company, which also got nothing on a counterclaim.
U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman on Thursday ordered Huawei Technologies Co. and a Texas-based subsidiary, Futurewei Technologies Inc., to take nothing in their lawsuit against Yiren Ronnie Huang and CNEX Labs Inc. CNEX also took nothing on its counterclaim against the plaintiffs. According to the court's June 27 judgment in Huawei Technologies Co. v. Huang, which dismissed the litigation with prejudice, each party must pay its own costs.
The plaintiffs alleged that Huang was a Futurewei employee who designed and developed solid-state disk and advanced computing network technology. He left to form a new company, CNEX, and other Futurewei employees left to join the new company. The plaintiffs claimed Huang and CNEX stole the plaintiffs' trade secrets and intellectual property to develop competing products and “usurp” business opportunities, said a May 9, 2018, second amended complaint.
In a counterclaim, CNEX sued the plaintiffs for misappropriation of trade secrets, alleging that Huawei conspired with a Chinese university to obtain one of CNEX's products, purportedly for research, and then the university sent its results to Huawei.
Mazzant's ruling follows a jury verdict issued Wednesday that said Futurewei didn't prove that Huang breached an employment agreement's provisions on nondisclosure of confidential information or nonsolicitation. However, Huang did breach the agreement's patent application disclosure provision, but it caused no harm to Futurewei, therefore the jury did not award any damages, the verdict said. Among other things, the jury found that Futurewei didn't prove that CNEX interfered with the employment agreement between Futurewei and Huang.
On CNEX's counterclaim for misappropriation of trade secrets, the jury found that CNEX proved that Huawei misappropriated trade secrets, but not Futurewei. Huawei's misappropriation did not cause it to be unjustly enriched, though, and the jury did not order Huawei to disgorge any ill-gotten gains.
Seyfarth Shaw partner Andrew Boutros, who represented the plaintiffs, declined to comment.
A statement by a Huawei spokesperson said the company is reviewing the mixed verdict and considering next steps.
“We are pleased that the jury accepted our evidence finding that Mr. Huang violated his employment agreement with Huawei. Although we disagree, we respect the jury's finding for CNEX on its only surviving counterclaim for which they awarded no damages,” the statement said.
Tyz Law Group founder Ryan Tyz of San Francisco, who represented Huang, said his client is ecstatic with the outcome and considers it a complete defense win.
“They hired Mr. Huang for his expertise. He came in and helped them build a product and then they tried to claim ownership and trade secrets based on his prior technology, and I think the jury disagreed with that,” Tyz said.
Tyz said the 17-day trial included testimony by 11 or 12 live witnesses and an additional eight deposition witnesses. He said he feels Huang's personality as a good and likable person came though on the witness stand and resonated with the jury.
“He had a dream — an American dream — to start up his own company,” Tyz said. ”He came over from China nearly three decades ago and became an American citizen. One of the reasons he did that is to pursue the dream of being an entrepreneur and inventor. They tried to stop him and effectively crush that dream.”
The Dacus Firm shareholder Deron Dacus of Tyler, who represented CNEX, said his client is also happy with the outcome. Most of the evidence the defense presented to the jury was documents from the time that the events at issue took place, which was three to seven years ago.
“Huawei's version of the trial was very different, in many respects completely opposite, of what their documents said,” Dacus said.
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 All5th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
5 minute readTexas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
3 minute readSamsung Flooded With Galaxy Product Patent Lawsuits in Texas Federal Court
Republican Who Might Become FTC's Next Chair Blasts Democratic Commissioners' 'All Mergers Are Bad' Mindset
7 minute readTrending 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