In this case, Lorillard sued Reynolds for breach of a settlement agreement, common law unfair competition and unfair and deceptive trade practices under Chapter 75-1.1.  Reynolds answered the complaint and asserted a Chapter 75-1.1 counterclaim on the basis “that Lorillard’s filing of its Complaint was an unfair trade practice.”  Reynolds asserted that Lorillard’s claim was filed in violation of a settlement agreement that prohibited the filing of such claims and was done for anticompetitive purposes.  Lorillard subsequently moved to dismiss this counterclaim.

In deciding this motion to dismiss, the Court started with the established principle in North Carolina that “a plaintiff who files an ‘objectively reasonable’ lawsuit cannot be held liable for an unfair trade practice under N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1.1.”  Id. quoting Reichold Chems., Inc. v. Goel, 146 N.C. App. 137, 157, 555 S.E.2d 281, 293 (2001).  The central issue on this motion was whether the Court could decide whether Lorillard’s claim was “objectively reasonable” based on the pleadings, or whether, as Reynolds contended, the Court would need to await fact discovery before making that determination. 

After first reviewing the law on the protections afforded litigants under the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine — a legal doctrine that first arose under the federal Sherman Act that generally protects a litigant for liability in bringing a legal claim –  the Court then turned to a review of the law regarding the “sham litigation” exception to the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine.  Under this established exception, a claim is not protected from liability if it is (1) “objectively meritless” and (2) the court finds that the “litigant’s subjective motivation” was an unlawful intent to “interfere directly with the business relationship of a competitor.”   Lorillard quoting Prof’l Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 49, 113 S. Ct. 1920 (1993).   Significantly, the Court noted, while citing several federal court cases and Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Engquist Equip., LLC 2003 NCBC 4 333 (2003)*, that the inquiry into the subjective intent of the plaintiff in filing the claim “only follows a finding that the suit is objectively baseless and does not inform that initial objective determination.”  Accordingly, if the plaintiff’s action is not “objectively baseless,” then the exception to Noerr-Pennington does not apply and a claim for unfair trade practices associated with the filing of that claim must fail.

In the Lorillard case, Reynolds argued that the Court should not decide if the Plaintiff’s claim was “objectively reasonable” as a matter of law, but rather, should await discovery and further factual development regarding Lorillard’s claim.  The Court declined Reynold’s invitation and instead, relying on GoldToeMoertz, LLC v. Implus Footcare, LLC, No. 5:09-CV-0072, 2101 WL 3474792 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 2010), found that the court need not in every case await fact discovery before deciding the objective reasonableness of a parties claim for purposes of deciding the applicability of the exception to Noerr-Pennington Doctrine.  The Court assumed that Reynolds was correct and that Lorillard had anticompetitive intent in bringing the claim.  But looking “through a lens of reasonable objectivity,” the Court concluded that Lorillard had a “reasoned basis” for its breach of contract claim.  According to the Court, “Lorillard’s subjective intent does not change that initial objective determination.”   While the Court was careful to note that its finding in no way indicated that Lorillard would ultimately prevail on its claim, the claim was not “utterly baseless.” 

The Business Court’s opinion is significant in several respects.  First, this case reflects one of the rare instances where a North Carolina state court has dismissed a “sham litigation” counterclaim on the pleadings.  Second, the case raises an important question.  If a plaintiff’s claim withstands a motion to dismiss, is the claim “objectively reasonable” such that a “sham litigation” counterclaim based on that claim must fail and be dismissed.  The Lorillard opinion would suggest this outcome.

____________

*  Parker Poe represented Sunbelt Rentals in this lawsuit.

At the trial court level, the defendants challenged the plaintiffs’ trade secret assertions.  The lower court, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, found that while the Plaintiff had shown the EU Model was unique, it had “failed to distinguish which aspects of its software, as a compilation, are publicly available or readily ascertainable and which are not.”  The district court granted the defendants’ motion and entered judgment in their favor.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed district court’s decision as to the trade secret claim. The Fourth Circuit first noted that the Virginia statute recognizes “compilation of information” as being a trade secret, if not generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means, and specifically, that “computer source code as a compilation can qualify as a trade secret.” The Fourth Circuit then reviewed the evidence presented and concluded that the Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to establish the trade secret status of the “software compilation” for a jury to consider.  As observed by the Court:  “Although the EU Model uses certain mathematical formulas that are in the public domain, [Decision Insights] asserted that the combination and implementation of these formulas in [Decision Insights'] source code for the software constitutes a trade secret.”  The Fourth Circuit found sufficient evidence to support this trade secret claim and remanded the case to the District Court for further consideration of other issues, including whether the Plaintiff had met its burden to show that it had taken reasonable measures to protect the alleged trade secret, another element of a trade secret claim.

While interesting in a number of respects, the Fourth Circuit’s opinion reaffirms that “compilations of information,” even when some of that information may be in the public domain, can be a trade secret.  The North Carolina Court of Appeals has similarly found under the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act that a compilation of business information can be a trade secret and protectable.  See Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Engquist Equipment LLC, 174 N.C. App. 49, 620 S.E.2d 222 (N.C. App. 2005). In that case, Sunbelt alleged that the Defendants, through an orchestrated raid of its business, created a competing company by misappropriating Sunbelt’s trade secrets consisting of a “compilation of business information.” Following a bench trial, the North Carolina Business Court entered judgment in Sunbelt’s favor on the trade secret claim, among others, which was affirmed on appeal:  “Defendants argue plaintiff’s ‘compilation of broad generalized categories of ever-changing business information’ does not qualify as a trade secret.  We disagree.”  Id.    

These cases are instructive. Trade secrets are not always the Coca Cola formula.  Trade secrets can include customer lists, pricing data and even compilations of valuable business information, which may be in the public domain in part, but taken as a whole, have value and are unique.  As demonstrated by the Sunbelt and Decision Insights opinions, it is the totality of the information that merits protection under the trade secrets statutes and each case must be evaluated on their facts to see if the elements of the trade secret claim are met.

Armacell LLC manufactured foam insulation products and employed Jeffrey Bostic in its Research and Development Group as a Senior Research Scientist.  Armacell had developed and marketed a foam insulation that was based on ethylene propylene diene methylene (EPDM), which was superior to other pipe insulation in terms of its fire test ratings.  Armacell competed with K-Flex, which did not have an EPDM product prior to this dispute.  

In its complaint, Armacell alleged, among other things, that Bostic and K-Flex had misappropriated Armacell’s trade secrets for the EPDM insulation product.  Armacell alleged that Bostic resigned from Armacell to accept a position as a chemist at K-Flex and in the process, undertook ”a surreptitious campaign of disloyal actions,” copying  onto external hard drives thousands of competitively sensitive and confidential information of Armacell.    Armacell asserted that K-Flex, which did not have an EPDM product, had been struggling to compete with Armacell in the sale of two inch thick pipe insulation.  After Bostic was hired, however, K-Flex quickly had ready for testing a one-inch thick EPDM product, a product for which K-Flex had no commercial need but which could be reproduced to develop a two-inch EPDM sample.  Armacell alleged that this evidence was strong circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.

The North Carolina Business Court agreed with Armacell and issued a preliminary injunction against Bostic, K-Flex and its affiliated company.  On appeal, the Defendants challenged the injunction order, asserting that the Business Court erred in finding that Armacell had proven a likelihood of success on the merits of its trade secrets claim.  The Defendants contended that Armacell brought only “speculative claims” and “while the evidence demonstrated that Bostic took a significant amount of data from [Plaintiff's] computer system, [Plaintiff] did not show that [Defendants] had a specific opportunity to acquire [Armacell's EPDM formulation].”  The Defendants argued that the evidence was simply not sufficient. 

The Court of Appeals rejected the Defendants’ argument.  In affirming the granting of the injunction, the Court correctly observed that North Carolina’s Trade Secrets Protection Act only requires that the plaintiff make out a prima facie showing of misappropriation and the burden then shifts to the defendant to show that it obtained the subject information lawfully. 

Under the Act, a prima facie case is established by “the introduction of substantial evidence that the person against whom relief is sought both:

(1) Knows or should have known of the trade secret; and

(2) Has had a specific opportunity to acquire it for disclosure or use or ahs acquired, disclosed, or used it without the express or implied consent or authority of the owner.”  N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-155. 

Once the prima facie showing is made, it is up to the defendant to rebut that evidence through the introduction of “substantial evidence that the person against whom relief is sought acquired the information comprising the trade secret by independent development, reverse engineering, or it was obtained from another person with a right to disclose the trade secret.” Id.

Although the defendants challenged the very nature of the burden shifting in the statute, the Court, consistent with precedent, reiterated the view that the statute in fact contemplates a shifting of the burden of proof.  Combs & Associates, Inc. v. Kennedy, 147 N.C. App. 362, 369, 555 S.E.2d 634, 639 (2001); Byrd’s Lawn & Landscaping v. Smith, 142 NC. App at 376, 542 S.E.2d at 693.  The reason for the burden shifting is simple:  the North Carolina statute reflects the practical reality that “[f]ew defendants leave the proverbial ’smoking gun’” when misappropriating a trade secret.  Lawsuits Between Business Competitors: Chapter 75-1.1 and Beyond, Eric D. Welsh, Mecklenburg County Bar Association Business Litigation Forum, February 17, 2006, p. 7.  Moreover, due to the frequent absence of direct evidence, a claim for misappropriation will often depend upon circumstantial evidence.  Medical Staffing Network, Inc. v. Ridgway, 194 N.C. App. 649, 658, 670 S.E.2d 321, 329 (2009); Byrd’s, 142 N.C.App. at 377, 542 S.E.2d at 693; Static Control Components, Inc. v. Darkprint Imaging, Inc., 200 F. Supp. 2d 541, 545 (M.D.N.C. 2002).    

In reviewing the record before it, the Court of Appeals found ample circumstantial evidence to support Armacell’s prima facie case of trade secret misappropriation.  The evidence showed that Bostic, as a Senior Research Scientist, had knowledge of Armacell’s EPDM technology and K-Flex, which had not developed an EPDM product prior to Bostic being hired by it, had, within a year after hiring Bostic, produced an EPDM sample.  Relying on Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Engquist Equip., L.L.C., 174 N.C.App. 49, 620 S.E.2d 222 (2005), the Court of Appeals found that this “before and after” evidence was ”sufficient circumstantial evidence to show Defendants’ opportunity to acquire the trade secrets as well as Defendants’ subsequent use thereof.”  

In Sunbelt, a case involving the theft of trade secrets and unfair competition resulting from a corporate raid, the North Carolina Business Court found as persuasive evidence of misappropriation the fact that the Defendants were able to quickly compete against Sunbelt even though they had not invested time to develop independently the requisite resources to do so.  As the Business Court stated:

In this instance it may be more important to look at what was not done and the business results.  There is no evidence of a unified pricing structure for Hi-Lift.  Many salespeople testified that they did not have prices when they began calling on customers.  There were no restrictions placed on the sales people concerning use of BPS information.  The sales people began calling on the same customers within days of leaving BPS and in some cases went after business that was based on special pricing arrangements.  Credit decisions had to be based upon knowledge obtained at BPS, as there is no evidence of the independent development of credit information for the customers called upon at the outset.  Indeed, there is little evidence of the independent development of information by Hi-Lift that one would expect in a normal greenfield operation. As previously noted, there was an advantage to Hi-Lift to get the new Hi-Lift branches open in the BPS markets before Sunbelt could close its transaction. The rapidity with which the old BPS customers were identified, called upon and converted to Hi-Lift, despite the lack of business information and guidance from Hi-Lift management, provides strong circumstantial evidence that at least some of BPS confidential information was used to solicit customers.  Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Engquist Equip., LLC, 2003 NCBC 4, 2003 WL 21017456 (N.C. Super. May 2, 2003). 

As in Sunbelt, the Defendants in Armacell obtained  a head start advantage as a result of Bostic’s alleged misappropriation and that advantage, from the Court’s perspective, was sufficient proof of misappropriation.   

The Defendants in Armacell attempted to rebut this prima facie showing, arguing that Armacell’s proof showed only that Bostic stole some of Armacell’s information but not the information related to the EPDM product.  Defendants’ curious argument, however, failed because they were unable to come forward with ample evidence to explain how it was that they had developed the EPDM product so quickly if not through Bostic’s efforts.  Here, it would appear that Armacell caught Bostic with his hand in the “trade secret cookie jar” — perhaps 7000 times — which was more than enough for the Court to conclude, at this stage, that Bostic not only had access to the information but, in light of the absence of a product before and then sudden introduction of a product after his hiring, had misappropriated that information. 

__________

*  Parker Poe represented Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. in the Head & Engquist Equipment litigation and Eric Welsh was a member of the trial team.

In that case, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital brought a series of claims against Wachovia Bank related to a Securities Lending Agency Agreement. It was alleged that under that Agreement, Wachovia was to manage cash collateral investments on the Plaintiff’s behalf pursuant to specific investment guidelines governing the investment activity. It was further alleged that Wachovia made an imprudent investment as part of this securities lending program. The Plaintiff alleged that the investment was too risky and that Wachovia failed to liquidate the investment timely, resulting in a loss of $14 million.

In moving to dismiss the complaint, Wachovia challenged the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices claim on the basis that securities transactions are exempted. Citing Skinner v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 333 S.E.2d 236, 241 (1985), Wachovia argued the Plaintiff’s allegation related to a security transaction and therefore was outside the reach of Chapter 75. In response, the Plaintiff acknowledged that the statute does not govern securities transactions but tried to escape dismissal, arguing that the subject of the claim involved “investment advice” and an “investor/investment advisor relationship,” not “securities transactions.” In advancing this argument, however, the Plaintiff failed to rely on any controlling authority that was apposite to the issues at hand. The Business Court rejected the Plaintiff’s attempt to reclassify its claim.

While correctly noting that the commerce element of Chapter 75-1.1 encompasses a broad range of business activity, the Business Court stated that “it does not cover ‘all wrongs’ in a business setting.” Id. citing Sterner v. Penn, 159 N.C. App. 626, 632-33, 583 S.E.2d 670, 675 (2003). The Business Court went on to cite North Carolina case law that has excluded securities transactions, beyond conventional securities, from the reach of the statute. See e.g. Oberlin Capital, LP v. Slavin, 147 N.C. App. 52, 62, 554 S.E.2d 840, 848 (2001) (Chapter 75 claim dismissed in case involving a loan agreement). Noting that courts have previously held that “transactions entered into for purposes of raising capital also qualify as a ’securities transaction’,” Id., the Business Court found the “securities lending program” at issue in the case to be similar to “raising capital” and therefore beyond the statute’s definition of “in or affecting commerce.”

Ultimately, the Business Court was not persuaded by the Plaintiff’s creative labeling. Reading Plaintiff’s argument, one is reminded of Shakespeare: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” The Plaintiff’s argument was certainly not made any easier by the fact that, while at the same time it argued its claim did not involve securities transactions, it brought a separate claim against Wachovia for a violation of North Carolina Securities Act and relied on the same basic facts for both of these claims.

In that case, it was alleged that Napco developed for PBM Graphics (”PBM”) a manufacturing process for sports memorabilia cards which PBM intended to use in supplying cards to a third-party customer, The Upper Deck Company. The “memorabilia cards” were allegedly different than other sports cards as they would have imbedded in them a swatch of a jersey or a sliver of a broken bat. Napco alleged that it created this process for PBM as a subcontractor, with the assurance that large orders would be placed for these cards as long as a satisfactory product could be produced. Napco further alleged that PBM, having gained access to the process, then misappropriated it for supplying cards to the Upper Deck Company. Napco asserted claims of trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition under North Carolina’s statutes and moved for a preliminary injunction. Interestingly, Napco did not allege that it had formed any contract with PBM or that PBM breached any obligation of confidentiality owed to Napco.

PBM had a different take on the situation, challenging virtually every aspect of the plaintiff’s claims in opposing the motion. Two arguments, however, bear noting. First, PBM argued that Napco’s claim was deficient because Napco “shared its alleged trade secrets without negotiating any obligation on the part of PBM to maintain the secrecy of these purported secrets.” Rather, Napco, according to the Defendant, provided PBM “all its purported trade secrets in the hopes of getting future work from PBM.” Second, PBM argued that Napco understood fully that it was hired to develop the process for both Napco and PBM and if successful, Napco would be awarded substantial work by PBM. “NAPCO’s reward for success was solely monetary” and therefore, plaintiff could not show irreparable harm for an injunction to be granted.

In denying the motion, the Business Court found many failings with the plaintiff’s argument. First, the Court noted was that there was substantial evidence presented that the claimed trade secret, the Napco process for manufacturing the sports memorabilia, did not work. Of course, one requirement of a trade secret in North Carolina is that the alleged secret have actual or potential commercial value. The Court found the evidence wanting in this respect, which obviously posed a hurdle for a preliminary injunction. The Court also found that evidence presented demonstrated that the alleged secret incorporated technology that was widely known and used in the printing industry. Again, this undermined the claim that the alleged secret had actual or potential commercial value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable through independent development.

Of significance here, the Court found that the Plaintiff had failed to show it had taken reasonable efforts to protect its alleged secrets, a fundamental element of any trade secret claim. The Court noted that the parties never negotiated a confidentiality agreement to protect the information or prevent its use by PBM. While Napco relied heavily on logs signed by PBM employees when visiting Napco’s facility as evidence of some agreement not to disclose confidential information, the Court found the language of the log too vague: visitors “may” be exposed to confidential or proprietary information of Napco.

Finally, while finding the Plaintiff had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court also found a separate ground to deny the motion for an injunction: the lack of irreparable harm. Noting that the Plaintiff made no claim that PBM took the alleged secret for any other purpose, the Court found that any damage could be addressed through monetary damages, as the Plaintiff had alleged that it had been promised to be awarded a contract to produce the cards for the Upper Deck Company. The Court reasoned “it should be relatively simple for Plaintiff to calculate its damages, which will be measured either by Plaintiff’s lost profits or the extent of Defendant’s unjust enrichment resulting from the alleged violation of the NCTSPA. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, the Court declines to grant preliminary injunctive relief.” Had the Plaintiff alleged some greater harm — such as the Defendant disclosing the trade secret to others, destroying its value, or using it with other customers — perhaps the Court would have come to a different conclusion on this point.

The Napco decision is interesting in that cases involving motions for preliminary injunctions to protect trade secrets typically do not turn on the irreparable harm component. Here, the Court found that fatal to the motion. But the Napco case also serves as a reminder of the need to take appropriate precautionary steps, through contract or otherwise, to protect the information claimed to be a trade secret. Without such steps, significant hurdles exist to convincing any court that injunctive relief is warranted.

In granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this part of the plaintiffs’ case, the court found that the plaintiffs’ carrier files, rates and customer files were not trade secrets. In support of this conclusion, the court noted that the information could be “learned directly from carriers and customers of ESI.” The court also noted that ESI did not take sufficient steps to safeguard the information.

While the opinion does elsewhere mention the fact that the defendant had entered into an employment agreement and non-compete (and indeed the court denied summary judgment to the defendants with respect to a non-disclosure covenant in that agreement), the court apparently gave this little or no weight in finding that inadequate steps were taken to protect the alleged confidential information. Interestingly, the court, in finding that the customer information was not a trade secret because it could be learned from the customers themselves, did not refer to the portion of the statutory definition that states that a trade secret includes a compilation of information. Of course, an argument could be made that customer files are a compilation of information that are worthy of protection. It is worth noting that the Business Court previously in the Sunbelt case, found that a compilation of information, including customer information, should be afforded trade secret protection. See Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Engquist Equipment LLC, 2003 NCBC 4 (May 2, 2003). Although the court did not mention the Sunbelt case or the compilation point specifically, the court did note that the alleged trade secrets were “compiled in the course of doing business” and there was no evidence that the plaintiffs expended “any significant amount of effort or money in developing the information, outside of the cost of doing business.” While this statement appears to be directed at the value of the alleged trade secret, case law does exist to support the proposition that trade secret status can be afforded to information that is developed in the ordinary course of a company’s business. See e.g. Sunbelt, supra, and Byrd’s Lawn & Landscaping, Inc. v. Smith, 142 N.C. App. 371 (2001).

Post script: This author was on the Sunbelt trial team.