SAP Can't Shake Antitrust, Copyright Suit From Former Joint Venture Partner Teradata
Although a federal judge in San Francisco said that enterprise data analytics and warehousing company Teradata Inc. would have to describe its alleged trade secrets in more detail, he largely denied SAP's motion to dismiss its former partner's lawsuit.
December 13, 2018 at 02:32 PM
3 minute read
A federal judge in San Francisco has largely turned back a request from SAP SE to toss out claims that it pilfered trade secrets and copyrights from a former joint venture partner to create its own competing product.
Enterprise data analytics and warehousing company Teradata Inc. and its lawyers at Morrison & Foerster sued SAP in June claiming that the German enterprise software giant used the companies' joint venture as an avenue to access Teradata's trade secrets and copyrights so SAP could develop its own analytics tool, SAP HANA, which launched in 2010.
SAP's lawyers at Jones Day and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison argued in their motion to dismiss that Teradata hadn't sufficiently described the trade secrets they alleged were stolen, and that the suit fell outside the two-year limit to bring claims under the parties' joint venture agreements and the three-year statute of limitations.
Although U.S. District Judge William Orrick III argeed with SAP that Teradata needed to further flesh out its descriptions of the alleged trade secrets at issue, the judge allowed Teradata's remaining copyright, antitrust, and contract claims to survive. Orrick noted that Teradata claimed it wasn't on notice about the alleged trade secret and copyright theft until after a 2015 article from Der Spiegel. The German news outlet reported that during the joint venture, an internal SAP auditor found the company had misappropriated proprietary information from Teradata.
“Teradata need not plead that it initiated an investigation sometime after 2011 when it also pleads that it lacked any reasonable suspicion of misappropriation until 2015,” Orrick wrote. “Its trade secret claim did not accrue until it discovered the infringement in September 2015,” he continued.
SAP's lawyers had also argued that the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which was passed in 2016, shouldn't be applied to the trade secret allegations in Teradata's suit retroactively. Orrick, however, found that assuming the trade secret information alleged in the suit hadn't been publicly disclosed at the time it was stolen, Teradata could bring a DTSA claim under a “continuing-use” theory.
Neither companies' lawyers immediately responded to requests for comment Thursday.
Read more:
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 AllLos Angeles Secures $35M Settlement From Monsanto in Water Contamination Lawsuit
Securities Case Over Hawaiian Electric Company's Wildfire Readiness Dismissed
2 minute readSpaceX Sues California Coastal Commission, Alleging Political Bias Against CEO Elon Musk
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5Monsanto Moves to Pause PCB Trial That Starts This Week
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
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