The Sixth Appellate District reversed a judgment and remanded. The court held that a jury’s finding that a defendant did not profit from its misappropriation of trade secrets led inevitably to a conclusion, as a matter of law, that the defendant’s unjust enrichment was “provable” within the meaning of a provision in the California Uniform Trade Secret Act.
E*Trade Financial Corporation, an internet-based financial services company, made a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) with Ajaxo Inc. by which E*Trade agreed to maintain the confidence of information it received while evaluating Ajaxo’s wireless stock-trading software. Eventually, Ajaxo offered to license its product to E*Trade for a specified amount. E*Trade made a counter offer, but ultimately withdrew it, claiming that Ajaxo was too small to be an E*Trade partner. Subsquently, E*Trade selected Everypath Inc. as its wireless vendor, even though Everypath did not then have a suitable wireless product. Within months, however, Everypath raised enough capital to finance its development of wireless technology.
