Edifecs Inc. v. Tibco Software Inc.
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138654, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 2010 WL 5209245 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff alleging threatened trade secret misappropriation under California law must plead specific facts indicating an affirmative threat or imminent misuse, beyond mere speculation or a competitor's lawful acquisition and refusal to adopt segregation measures. A contract's general reasonable care clause does not obligate a party to implement specific employee or document segregation measures not explicitly stated, nor does the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing create new contractual duties.
Facts:
- Beginning in 2001, Edifecs Inc., a software development company, entered into various licensing agreements with TIBCO Software, Inc., a business software company.
- The licensing agreements granted TIBCO the right to use, copy, manufacture, and distribute object code for several Edifecs software products and bundle them with TIBCO products.
- The agreements contained confidentiality clauses prohibiting TIBCO from using or disclosing Edifecs' confidential information, except for purposes consistent with administration and performance, and required TIBCO to use a "commercially reasonable degree of care" to avoid disclosure.
- On January 8, 2010, TIBCO publicly announced its acquisition of Foresight Corporation, Edifecs' chief competitor in the healthcare software solutions industry, as a separate subsidiary.
- Edifecs subsequently sent a letter to TIBCO, listing its proprietary and confidential information and reminding TIBCO of its duty to prevent disclosure, proposing "reasonable steps" like employee and document segregation.
- TIBCO refused to implement Edifecs' proposed segregation steps.
Procedural Posture:
- On March 22, 2010, Edifecs Inc. filed a diversity suit against TIBCO Software, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging breach of contract, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, trade secret misappropriation, and seeking injunctive relief.
- TIBCO filed a motion to dismiss Edifecs' complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing that Edifecs made only speculative claims of future misuse of proprietary information.
- The District Court heard oral argument on TIBCO's motion to dismiss on December 3, 2010.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a complaint alleging that a competitor's lawful acquisition of a trade secret holder and the holder's subsequent refusal to segregate employees and documents constitute "threatened misappropriation" under California's Uniform Trade Secret Act, absent specific facts indicating an affirmative threat or imminent misuse? 2. Does a contract requiring "commercially reasonable care" to avoid disclosure of confidential information impose a specific duty upon a party to segregate employees and documents following its acquisition of a competitor, when such measures are not explicitly stated in the agreement? 3. Does a party breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by refusing to segregate employees and documents after acquiring a competitor, if the contract does not impose such a duty and there is no allegation that the refusal frustrated the other party's ability to receive the benefits of the agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Ricardo S. Martinez
No, Edifecs' complaint does not sufficiently allege "threatened misappropriation" under California law because it provides only speculative claims of future misuse, rather than specific facts indicating an affirmative threat or imminent misuse. The court first determined that California law applied to the trade secret claim, given Washington's lack of clear precedent on "inevitable disclosure" (which California rejects) and the "most significant relationship" test favoring California due to the alleged injurious conduct occurring there and California's strong public policy against unreasonable trade restraints. Under California law, "threatened misappropriation" requires allegations of words or conduct indicating imminent misuse. The court found that TIBCO's lawful business decision to acquire Foresight and its refusal to adopt Edifecs' proposed segregation measures did not equate to an affirmative threat, especially in the absence of specific allegations of affirmative misconduct (e.g., shredding documents, suspicious downloads, or direct competitive actions using Edifecs' secrets) similar to those found in cases like Clorox or Ciena Commc'ns. Edifecs' claims were deemed too speculative. No, the contract's "commercially reasonable care" clause does not impose an obligation on TIBCO to segregate employees and documents following its acquisition of a rival company. The court declined to "write this obligation into the contract," noting that the agreement already granted TIBCO an independent development right allowing for competitive products without requiring such segregation, making such an implied duty inconsistent with the contract's express terms. No, TIBCO did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because the covenant cannot impose substantive duties beyond those explicitly in the agreement. Since the contract did not require segregation, Edifecs failed to allege that TIBCO's refusal actually frustrated its ability to receive the benefit of trade secret protection as agreed upon.
Analysis:
This case underscores the stringent pleading standards under Twombly and Iqbal for claims of threatened trade secret misappropriation, particularly under California law which rejects the "inevitable disclosure" doctrine. It clarifies that a mere fear of disclosure following a competitor's lawful acquisition, even with existing confidentiality agreements, is insufficient without concrete allegations of affirmative conduct manifesting an imminent threat. Furthermore, the ruling emphasizes that courts will not interpret general contractual clauses like "reasonable care" to impose specific, unwritten obligations or use the implied covenant of good faith to create new substantive duties, thereby reinforcing the principle of judicial restraint in contract interpretation. This impacts future cases by requiring plaintiffs to gather more specific evidence of actual or imminent misuse, rather than relying on inferences from business acquisitions, before surviving a motion to dismiss.
