Legal Battle: Monkey.See vs. Peach.Inc - Trade Secret Dispute
Monkey.See, a startup founded by Cornelius Heston, faces a legal battle against Peach.Inc and its former engineer Simon Zaius. The lawsuit involves allegations of trade secret misappropriation, unjust enrichment, and patent infringement, leading to a complex legal dispute and substantial damages sought by Monkey.See. The case unfolds as Simon transitions from Monkey.See to Peach, raising questions of intellectual property rights and confidentiality breaches.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
The Startup: Founded by Cornelius Heston to market facial recognition software for unlocking smartphones. 2
The Engineer: Cornelius hired Simon Zaius, Ph.D to develop the software. Simon had a contractual obligation to assign rights to all IP he developed and maintain confidentiality. 3
Three years later . . . Monkey See was marketing itself to all the major players in the smartphone market, including global giant Peach. 4
Peach was interested . . . The talks between the two companies went further than any of Monkey See s other negotiations. In the end, Peach decided that it could do the development in-house. 5
Monkey See missed its big chance Disgruntled, Simon left Monkey See . . . and was soon hired by Peach. 6
Peach got sued . . . Monkey See sued both Peach and Simon for trade secret misappropriation. He sought over $20 million in damages for unjust enrichment under both federal and state law. 7
The Lawsuit: Monkey See alleged that Simon copied source code from his company computer to a flash drive during his employment. Peach then used this trade secret information to obtain a patent and develop the Peach Z product. 8
Monkey See's Client Meeting Cornelius Heston Peter Mims IT Director, Dweeba Jones Priya Prasad Attorney, George Grandscale Ali Dhanani Issues: Imaging of Simon s computer All Versions of Source Code Version 6 is the only version that has the Breakthrough Feature while Simon was employed by Monkey See. 9
Peachs Client Meeting Peach In-house Counsel 1, Kelly Eager LaTasha Snipes Peach s In-house Counsel 2, Diamond Dye Dhamineh Moraseli Peach s Outside Counsel, Wilma Billy Scairya Paige Edwards Issues: Getting a Litigation Hold Out Gathering Pricing Documents Worldwide Producing all Versions of Peach s Source Code 10
Discovery Hearing Monkey See Monkey Do s Counsel Goliath Greybeard Paul van Slyke John Goodall Kyle Friesen vs. Peach s Counsel Henry Trotter James Matthew Frontz Princess Peach Heather Khassian Judge Peter C. Justice Pete Chassman
Monkey's Motion to Compel Source Code Monkey See wants ALL versions of Peach s facial recognition source code. Will show when the special Breakthrough Feature Simon was working on was added to Peach s code. Irrelevant whether it was used in a finished product, it is still misappropriation of a trade secret. Monkey See will agree to reasonable source code protections. 12
Monkey's Motion to Compel Financial Documents Monkey See wants pricing information for the Peach Z and their other smartphones worldwide. This will allow Monkey See to see what value Peach has assigned to the facial recognition feature it stole from Monkey See. Trade secret misappropriation is not territorially limited like patent infringement. If successful in its claim, Monkey See is entitled to damages for worldwide sales. 13
Monkey's Motion to Compel Your Rulings? Issue Monkey s Arguments Relevant to copying allegations Not too burdensome for giant Peach Will agree to source code protections Peach s Arguments Unreasonably broad Source code inspections are burdensome, when done right Source Code for All Versions Requested information will not reflect value of one small feature Producing the information is too costly Worldwide Pricing Information on Other Models Relevant to show value added by trade secrets Trade secret claims permit global damages
Peach's Motion to Compel -- Forensics Assessment Monkey's server logs that show Simon downloaded the entirety of version 6 of the code six weeks before he left the company Not clear whether this was only to his computer or to a flash drive No flash drive was turned in when Simon departed the company Simon s computer was re-purposed and given to another employee Monkey had 20 personal computers in service at that time and can easily identify those computers. Requested forensics is very narrowly tailored and will end once computer is identified and analyzed 15
Peach's Motion to Compel -- Technical Documents and Source Code Monkey has argued that Simon added a facial recognition feature in version 6 of Monkey s product that wasn t present in earlier versions Version 6 was the current version at Simon s departure Only discovery of all documents relating to development and testing of facial recognition features will confirm when the facial recognition features were added Relevant because Monkey has argued this as a basis for alleging copying of version 6 16
Peach's Motion to Compel -- Technical Documents and Source Code Rule 26 (b)(1) allows discovery that is: relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case considering: the importance of the issues at stake in the action the amount in controversy the parties relative access to relevant information the parties resources the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit 17
Peach's Motion to Compel Your Rulings? Issue Peach s Arguments Can definitively show whether Simon copied files to flash drive Examination can be limited to reduce the burden Relevant to disprove Monkey s allegations regarding development Proportionate to the needs of the case under Rule 26 Monkey s Arguments Not definitive because logs may have been overwritten Extensive scope too burdensome for Monkey Forensic Examination of Computers Only the allegedly copied Version 6 is relevant Discovery is disproportionate because of limited relevance Source Code for All Versions
