Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

LimitNone v. Google, Inc., No. 08 C 4178 (Manning, J.).

Last month I posted that LimitNone, a Chicago company, sued Google for trade secret misappropriation seeking $1B -- click here for that post.  Earlier this week, Google removed the case to the Northern District, arguing that LimitNone's Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA") claim sounded in copyright and, therefore, was preempted by the Copyright Act creating federal question jurisdiction (click here for Google's removal papers). 

In its complaint, LimitNone alleged that Google entered a nondisclosure agreement with LimitNone to review LimitNone's gMove software -- software that helps Microsoft Outlook users migrate data to the Google platform.  Google allegedly assured LimitNone that it would not offer a competing product.  But after receiving LimitNone's trade secrets, including its software code, and promoting the $19 gMove software, Google allegedly began offering a free, competing software package which allegedly used LimitNone's trade secrets.   LimitNone has not filed any responsive papers or pleadings yet, but I will keep you updated if LimitNone challenges the removal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Vaughn v. Kelly, No. 06 C 6427, 2007 WL 804694 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2007) (Manning, J.).

Judge Manning denied plaintiff Vaughn's motion to remand his case to state court, but gave plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.  Vaughn sued defendant R. Kelly ("Kelly") in Illinois state court alleging breach of contract, fraud and unjust enrichment, among other things.  Vaughn alleged that he introduced Kelly to stepping, taught him how to step, helped him write a stepping-based song entitled "Step in the Name of Love," and collaborated with Kelly to develop a video for the song.  Kelly had the case removed to the Northern District based upon an argument that the claims sound in copyright law.  In his motion to remand, Vaughn argued that his case was not about copyright, but about Kelly's alleged theft of his uncopyrightable ideas and the breach of the contract governing the exchange of those ideas.  The Court noted that Vaughn's fraud and breach of oral contract claims were close questions, but held that Vaughn's unjust enrichment claim sounded in copyright.  The unjust enrichment was based upon fixed works -- Kelly's song and video -- and the unjust enrichment claim is equivalent to allegations of Kelly's infringement of Vaughn and Kelly's alleged joint work.  The Court acknowledged that Vaughn was likely to amend his complaint to force remand and gave Vaughn a deadline for filing any such amended complaint.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Junction Solutions, LLC v. MBS DEV, Inc., No. 06 C 1632, 2007 WL 114306 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2007) (Gottschall, J.).

Judge Gottschall denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's, Junction Solutions, trade secret and tortious interference case for lack of venue and denied plaintiff's motion to remand the case to Cook County Circuit Court, from where defendants removed the case.  Individual defendants, Jeffrey Ernest, Mitch Tucker and Kenneth Paul, were plaintiff's employees and helped it develop it its Junction Multi-Channel Distribution Software ("JMCD Software").  Shortly after developing the JMCD Software, the individual defendants left Junction Solutions and joined its competitor MBS DEV.  MBS DEV then began marketing software that competed with the JMCD Software.  Junction Solutions sued MBS DEV in the District of Colorado in 2004.  The parties eventually settled that case, a settlement which was also signed by the individual defendants.  In 2006, MBS partnered with Iteration2 and again began planning to market a software product very similar to the JMCD Software.  In response, plaintiff filed the instant suit in Cook County Circuit Court and defendants removed it to the Northern District.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims arguing that the suit was governed by the prior case's Settlement Agreement which retained exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the District of Colorado.  The Court, however, held that Judge Figa's, the District of Colorado judge, ruling that the Northern District case did not arise from the Settlement Agreement collaterally estopped defendants' argument.  Because the District of Colorado was not the exclusive jurisdiction and because defendants had not argued there was any other issue with the Northern District's venue, the case was not dismissed.

The Court also dismissed plaintiff's motion to remand the case to Cook County Circuit Court arguing that the individual defendants' employment agreement required that any disputes be litigated in Cook County.  But the Court held that the various employment agreements were extinguished by the Settlement Agreement.  As a result, the Northern District was an acceptable venue.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks