In an era where trade secret appropriation battles have the potential to shape the corporate landscape, apple vs revos This incident is a stark reminder of the importance of careful onboarding practices when it comes to trade secrets. In this case, the court’s scrutiny of employee conduct highlights an important lesson: companies should ensure that new employees do not bring in confidential information from previous employers. Efforts to remind new employees to avoid keeping confidential information, as Ribos exemplified, can also go a long way. Here we discuss the complexities of secret information. apple vs revos I will take the case and offer some points.
background
The conflict came to light in 2022 when Apple accused a former employee of Rivos of misappropriating its own system-on-chip (“SoC”) design information. Rivos is a “stealth mode” startup founded to design and sell SoCs. In other words, it is a company that operates discreetly and in secrecy, keeping innovation and development secret until launch. At the time Apple filed its complaint, nearly 50 of its employees had left to join Livos.
Apple’s complaint includes allegations of trade secret misappropriation under the Defense Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) against Ribos and several former Apple employees, and breach of contract claims against former employees who retained confidential information after their employment with Apple ended. contained allegations. In response, Mr. Ribos and his former employees countersued, alleging that Apple took unlawful steps to intimidate employees who were considering leaving the company, in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200.
legal development
The legal landscape changed significantly when U.S. District Judge Edward Davila partially granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Regarding his Apple trade secret claims against Rivos, the court held that Apple could not determine how the misappropriations by these former employees were attributed to Rivos or how Rivos ratified such misappropriations. It was determined that the claim was not made sufficiently. To this end, the court noted that Apple itself claims that his CEO of Livos gave advice to former employees. do not have To maintain Apple’s confidential information.
The court also rejected Apple’s trade secret claims against two former employees, finding that misappropriation could not be inferred from the mere fact that they maintained access to Apple information on synced drives. . The court also dismissed his breach of contract claim against one of his two former employees, finding Apple’s claims too vague.In other wordsCharges about when the information was stored on his drives and how he was able to access those drives are lacking. In contrast, the court upheld Apple’s breach of contract claim against the other of the two former employees.
Despite the setback, the court found that Apple plausibly alleged misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract against the remaining employees. The court found that the transfer of confidential information by each of these employees shortly before joining Rivos supported the inference that these individual defendants posed a threat of embezzlement. The court also allowed Apple to file an amended complaint regarding the dismissed claims.
recent trends
Since the court’s decision on the motion to dismiss, Apple and the six former employee defendants have dropped all claims against each other. As part of the resolution, the former employees agreed to refrain from accessing, using or disclosing Apple’s trade secrets. As a result, only Apple and Rivos remain parties to the case. The case is currently on hold so the parties can explore potential settlements. apple vs revos22-cv-2637, DI 387 (N.D. Cal. January 10, 2024) (Maintenance of Conditions Granted Order Case).
Take-out
- The court’s distinction between employees who transferred confidential information immediately before joining Rivos and employees who simply continued to access confidential information argued that access to confidential information is possible in certain circumstances. We emphasize that simply doing so does not necessarily mean embezzlement, even if continued access constitutes illegal activity. Breach of contract.
- The court’s finding that Apple did not adequately assert how the embezzlement was attributable to Livos reveals the complexities in establishing the relationship between individual employee embezzlement and a company. This highlights the need to establish the facts attributing employee embezzlement to the new employer.
- The court’s scrutiny of how Mr. Ribos was implicated or confirmed in the embezzlement charges highlights the importance of advising new employees not to retain confidential information from former employers. This type of evidence has the potential to turn the tide in situations where the allegations regarding the conduct of your new employer’s company are not fully clear.
[View source.]