De Lage Landen Operational Services, LLC v. Third Pillar Systems, Inc
693 F.Supp.2d 423, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83386, 2010 WL 780355 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California law, detailed business process 'use cases' can qualify as trade secrets if they derive independent economic value from their unique combination and are subject to reasonable secrecy efforts. While specific clauses in subsequent task orders may supersede general intellectual property provisions in a master agreement, an option to claim ownership of work product must be exercised within a reasonable time, and actual or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets warrants a permanent injunction when monetary damages are inadequate.
Facts:
- De Lage Landen Operational Services, LLC (DLL), a vendor finance company, began the 'Beacon Project' in 2001 to consolidate its diverse computer systems into a single, enterprise-wide software system.
- On July 23, 2004, DLL engaged Third Pillar Systems, Inc. (Third Pillar), a software development company, through a Global Master Professional Services Agreement ('Services Agreement') for design and implementation services related to Third Pillar's LoanPath software.
- The Services Agreement and subsequent Task Orders required DLL to prepare 'Level 3 use cases,' which were detailed narratives describing DLL's specific business processes and workflows for its financial leasing operations, which Third Pillar then used to develop the Beacon software.
- Initial agreements provided that DLL would generally own work product created by Third Pillar, but later Task Orders, specifically Task Order 5 (executed August 4, 2005), shifted general ownership of 'Work Product' to Third Pillar, except for 'Customer-Retained Work Product,' which included designs of client/dealer user interfaces and credit/behavioral scoring processes, or other work product for which DLL expressly notified Third Pillar in writing of its desire for ownership.
- In August 2006, Third Pillar delivered the first software to DLL, which DLL's employees found to contain hard-coded elements rather than being configurable as expected, and Third Pillar failed to deliver complete, functioning software through 2008.
- After DLL leased the Beacon Source Code from Third Pillar in November 2008, a DLL expert, Susan Spielman, reviewed the code and reported in December 2008 that the Beacon software was hard-coded to contain the entirety of DLL's use cases.
- Prior to this lawsuit, Third Pillar re-used at least two of DLL's specific 'use cases' (Template Maintenance and Partner Qualification) and the software code derived from DLL's business processes for another customer, referred to as 'Tuscany,' a direct competitor of DLL, and planned to do the same for a 'Rome' customer.
- On May 29, 2009, the same day DLL filed its lawsuit, DLL sent a letter to Third Pillar asserting its desire to retain ownership of all work product implementing its requirements under Task Orders 2 and 5.
Procedural Posture:
- De Lage Landen Operational Services, LLC (DLL) filed a lawsuit against Third Pillar Systems, Inc. (Third Pillar) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserting claims for breach of contract, violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel.
- DLL moved the District Court for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Third Pillar's alleged misuse of information and require its return.
- The parties subsequently agreed to forgo a preliminary injunction hearing and proceed directly to an evidentiary hearing for a permanent injunction before the District Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a software developer in breach of contract and liable for trade secret misappropriation under California law when it re-uses specific client-provided 'use cases' and derived software code with other clients, despite master agreements granting the client ownership of specific work product categories, and does such conduct warrant a permanent injunction?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Bartle
Yes, Third Pillar breached its contracts and misappropriated trade secrets owned by DLL, and a permanent injunction is warranted to prevent further harm. The court found that the intellectual property clauses in Task Order 5, which explicitly allowed for changes to ownership and granted Third Pillar ownership of most 'Work Product' except for specific 'Customer-Retained Work Product,' superseded the more general Services Agreement provisions. However, DLL's attempt to claim ownership of certain work product via notice under Task Order 5, subsection (i), was untimely, as it was not exercised within a 'reasonable time' given the years-long delay and DLL's knowledge of Third Pillar's intent to market the product. Despite this, the court determined that 12 specific use cases and their derivative source code were always owned by DLL under other subsections of Task Order 5: subsection (ii) (design of client/dealer user interface) and subsection (iv) (credit or behavioral scoring models, designs, specifications or processes), the latter of which was interpreted broadly to cover DLL's entire credit decision process based on parol evidence. Third Pillar breached the Services Agreement by re-using these DLL-owned use cases and their incorporated source code with its 'Tuscany' customer. Furthermore, these 12 DLL-owned use cases qualified as trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act because they derived independent economic value from their unique combination of steps, and DLL made reasonable efforts to maintain their secrecy through confidentiality agreements and contractual provisions. Third Pillar's disclosure to the 'Tuscany' customer constituted actual misappropriation, and its plans for a 'Rome' customer represented threatened misappropriation. A permanent injunction was necessary because Third Pillar’s ongoing and threatened disclosures would cause irreparable harm to DLL's market advantages that could not be adequately compensated by monetary damages.
Analysis:
This case highlights the critical importance of precisely drafted intellectual property clauses in master service agreements and subsequent task orders, especially concerning the hierarchy and interplay of different contractual provisions. It clarifies that specific clauses in task orders, if allowed by the master agreement, can override general ownership presumptions. The ruling underscores that exercising options to retain ownership must be done within a 'reasonable time' to be effective, preventing retrospective claims years after development. Furthermore, it affirms that detailed business process 'use cases,' even if composed of individually common steps, can qualify as trade secrets if they offer a unique combination with economic value and are subject to reasonable secrecy efforts, warranting injunctive relief against actual and threatened misappropriation.
