- with readers working within the Pharmaceuticals & BioTech industries
This is part of a series of articles discussing recent orders of interest issued in patent cases by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
In Ocean Semiconductors LLC v. Analog Devices Inc., No. 24-cv-11759-PBS, Magistrate Judge Levenson issued two orders addressing discovery disputes brought by Plaintiff.
First, the Court denied additional Rule 30(b)(6) testimony of Defendant, finding that Plaintiff's prior deposition delved into subject matter not grounded in the claims of the asserted patents and that the requested discovery was “marginally, if at all, relevant.”
Next, the Court compelled responses to “sixteen broad interrogatories” after narrowing the scope to focus on the subject matter claimed by the patent at issue and thus “tailored to meet the needs of this case.”
Last, the Court denied a motion to compel a third party corporate designee to testify regarding the third party's search for documents in the face of repeated representations by the third party's counsel that their client has “has double-checked to confirm that [it] does not have responsive documents or information . . . .”
In Gratuity Solutions, LLC v. Toast, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-10948, Judge Kobick denied Toast's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The Court denied the motion as it concerns the misappropriation of trade secrets claims, finding that Gratuity plausibly alleged that (1) it possessed trade secrets, (2) it took reasonable steps to protect those secrets, and (3) Toast misappropriated those secrets.
First, the Court concluded that Gratuity has identified its alleged trade secrets with sufficient particularity to provide notice of the material claimed to constitute a trade secret. Gratuity alleged that it had information that constituted trade secrets in its PayDayPortal System, including the configurations of Gratuity's interface, which contained its customer-specific “recipes,” requirements, needs, and preferences. The Court declined Toast's invitation to find that the features were not eligible for protection as allegedly overbroad or vague, noting that this issue is properly resolved by the factfinder on the basis of a complete evidentiary record. The Court also rejected Toast's argument that the alleged trade secrets were publicly disclosed in two patents, finding that (i) the patents did not disclose all of the trade secrets and did not discuss them with the same particularity as exhibits to the Complaint, and (ii) that one patent in particular could not have disclosed the trade secrets as they had not been developed or made available at the time the patent was applied for.
Second, the Court found that Gratuity pled reasonable steps to maintain the secrecy of its PayDayPortal System by employing user accounts and passwords, requiring two-tiered authentication, and using encryption.
Third, the Court determined that Gratuity had plausibly alleged that Toast acquired these secrets through misappropriation. Gratuity alleged that Toast's Customer Advisory Board, all of whom were also customers of Gratuity, had access to the PayDayPortal System and were sharing the proprietary information with Toast without authorization. Gratuity also plausibly alleged that Toast's products started offering features that are nearly identical, including using the same terminology, workflows, and configurations.
The Court also found that Gratuity plausibly alleged claims of conspiracy to misappropriate its trade secrets and intentional interference with contractual relations. The Court first determined the tort claims were not preempted under Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act or FUTSA because it was brought under Massachusetts law, not Florida law. Next, the Court found that Gratuity adequately alleged conspiracy to misappropriate its trade secrets and intentionally inference with contract because, as alleged, Toast acted in concert with or gave substantial assistance to the wrongful conduct of others. As to the underlying tort of misappropriation of trade secrets the Court found that Gratuity alleged that Toast (1) had an understanding with certain members of its Customer Advisory Board to misappropriate trade secrets and (2) knew, should have known, or was willfully blind to that misappropriation. And as to the underlying tort of contractual interference, the Court found that Gratuity sufficiently alleged that it (1) had contracts with certain members of Toast's Customer Advisory Board, (2) Toast knowingly induced them to breach the contract, and (3) the interference was improper.
Accordingly, the Court denied Toast's motion to dismiss.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
