REXA, Inc. v. Mark Chester
Not yet reported in Federal Reporter (Decided July 28, 2022) (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff claiming trade secret misappropriation under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act must identify a trade secret with sufficient specificity, showing it is not generally known and subject to reasonable secrecy efforts. An employee's implied contractual obligation to assign patent rights to an employer under Massachusetts law arises only when the employee was 'specifically directed' to invent the subject matter for which assignment is sought. A district court imposing attorneys' fees as a sanction for litigation misconduct must adequately justify the fee amount, making specific findings on objections to ensure the award redresses losses without imposing additional punishment.
Facts:
- In 1998, Koso America, Inc. hired Mark Chester as a project engineer in Massachusetts, later promoting him to a management role.
- In July 2002, Chester participated in a Koso project (RFD 02-122) aimed at creating an alternate flow matching valve for an Xpac actuator to eliminate royalty payments.
- During the 2002 project, Chester and Ken Enos created an experimental prototype of an actuator, which modified the existing Xpac actuator by replacing the flow matching valve with two solenoid valves and required other modifications.
- By mid-August 2002, Koso formally terminated the RFD 02-122 project due to the improbability of commercial success, and the actuator prototype was disassembled and shelved.
- Chester was never instructed that Koso viewed the shelved RFD 02-122 project as a trade secret, nor was he shown to have received a confidentiality agreement during his employment.
- In July 2003, Chester resigned from Koso.
- In 2012, Chester joined MEA Inc. as a senior engineer, and in 2013, he and other MEA employees developed a new working prototype called the Hawk actuator, which uses solenoid valves.
- In October 2014, Chester and MEA filed a patent application for the Hawk actuator with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
Procedural Posture:
- REXA, Inc. sued Mark Chester and MEA Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets (Count I) and breach of an implied-in-fact contract (Count IV), along with preempted claims for conversion and unfair competition.
- During contentious discovery, Defendants Chester and MEA accused Plaintiff REXA of improper conduct, including manipulating documents related to a Bonus Letter and Confidentiality Agreement and using 'REXA' as a misleading shorthand for 'Koso' in filings.
- Following discovery, all parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants Chester and MEA on all claims, dismissing them with prejudice.
- Chester and MEA then sought $2,187,071.12 in attorneys' fees from REXA as a sanction for litigation misconduct, invoking the court's inherent authority.
- The district court granted Chester and MEA's request for attorneys' fees and summarily overruled REXA's objections to the fee petition.
- After the parties stipulated that an additional $170,000 should be added for subsidiary fee litigation, the district court entered an amended judgment awarding Chester and MEA $2,357,071.12 in total fees.
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 the Illinois Trade Secrets Act require a plaintiff to identify an alleged trade secret with sufficient specificity, beyond broad areas of technology or publicly known information, to survive a motion for summary judgment? 2. Under Massachusetts law, does an employee owe an implied contractual obligation to assign patent rights to an employer for an invention when the employee was not specifically directed to invent the subject matter of the patent? 3. Did the district court abuse its discretion by awarding attorneys' fees as a sanction for litigation misconduct without providing a sufficiently detailed explanation for overruling specific objections to the fee petition, particularly for a substantial award?
Opinions:
Majority - Circuit Judge Brennan
1. No, the Illinois Trade Secrets Act requires a plaintiff to identify an alleged trade secret with sufficient specificity, and REXA failed to do so. The court found that REXA broadly described '2002 Designs' as trade secrets without isolating specific, unknown elements. REXA conceded that aspects like the Xpac actuator and the use of solenoid valves were widely known in the industry before 2002, thus precluding trade secret protection for those elements. The court affirmed summary judgment because REXA did not present a specific element or combination of elements that was unknown to the trade. Furthermore, even if a trade secret had been identified, the court found REXA's claims of misappropriation were based on untenable inferences, given the eleven-year gap between Chester's work on the Koso prototype and the Hawk actuator, and his lack of access to key documents like the source code or design sketch. Significant differences between the commercially unsuccessful Koso prototype and the successful Hawk actuator also negated misappropriation, especially since the Hawk's key innovations were not present or tested in the Koso prototype. 2. No, an employee does not owe an implied contractual obligation to assign patent rights to an employer under Massachusetts law unless specifically directed to invent the subject matter of the patent. The court determined that the RFD 02-122 project's specific goal was to design a replacement flow matching valve to avoid royalties, not to invent a new actuator like the 2002 prototype or the Hawk. Therefore, Chester was not 'specifically directed' to develop the invention described in the patent application. The court also declined to rule on the transferability of implied-in-fact obligations to successor corporations, finding it unnecessary given the lack of specific direction. Additionally, the court held that REXA’s allegations of an implied contractual duty to maintain confidentiality were preempted by the ITSA, as they were 'essentially claims of trade secret misappropriation.' 3. Yes, the district court abused its discretion by awarding a substantial sum of attorneys' fees as a sanction for litigation misconduct without providing a sufficiently detailed explanation for overruling specific objections to the fee petition. While the district court correctly found litigation misconduct based on REXA's manipulation of documents and attempts to mislead Chester at his deposition, its summary rejection of REXA's numerous objections to the fee amount was inadequate. The court failed to address specific objections regarding duplicative tasks, unnecessary motions, vague billing entries, or partner-level billing for associate-level tasks, especially for an award exceeding $2 million. The Seventh Circuit vacated the fee award and remanded the case, instructing the district court to make specific findings for each objection and ensure the award redresses losses traceable to the misconduct, without imposing additional punishment.
Analysis:
This case establishes clear boundaries for trade secret claims, requiring precise identification of the secret beyond general knowledge, and limits implied contractual obligations for patent assignment to situations where an employee was specifically tasked with the invention. It also significantly clarifies the standards for judicial discretion in awarding substantial attorneys' fees as sanctions, emphasizing the need for detailed justification and a compensatory, rather than punitive, nexus between the misconduct and the awarded amount. This ruling will likely lead to more stringent pleading requirements for trade secret claims and closer scrutiny of fee petitions in federal courts.
