Federal Court Orders Judgment in Favor of ClearOne for Approximately $9.7 Million in Trade Secret Misappropriation Case
The Final Order was issued in the case which was presented to a jury in October and
By its Final Order, the court resolved various post-verdict motions filed by ClearOne and the defendants, including the defendants' arguments that they should not be subject to exemplary damages for willfully and maliciously misappropriating ClearOne's trade secrets. The court rejected the defendants' arguments on exemplary damages, finding "that an award of exemplary damages against each of the [d]efendants is appropriate."
As to defendant Biamp, the court ruled that the finding of willful and malicious trade secret misappropriation by Biamp was supported because "Biamp deliberately ignored numerous warning signs suggesting that the AEC technology offered by WideBand was not WideBand's to sell. Given all the facts presented to Biamp at the time, it could not have held a good faith belief that its use of the WideBand code was valid," and that Biamp earned over
As to the other defendants, the court found that there was evidence of deliberate copying of ClearOne's trade secrets, including evidence that "showed that secret elements of the ClearOne Honeybee Code were found on the WideBand Defendants' computers and that users of those computers attempted to hide that fact." The court also noted that the "evidence showed that none of the WideBand Defendants held a good faith belief that the copying and use of ClearOne's Honeybee Code trade secret was proper." And, although the court ruled that the "most egregious instances of a lack of good faith are found in the behavior of
The court ruled that ClearOne's fiduciary duty claims against Chiang and Yang were preempted by the Utah Trade Secret Act, and therefore set aside the jury's verdict for breach of fiduciary duty and punitive damages, but noted that the findings of breach of fiduciary duty and the award of punitive damages on those claims supported the exemplary damages awarded by the court for theft of ClearOne's trade secrets against these defendants. The court ruled that ClearOne was not entitled to prejudgment interest. The court denied a number of other motions filed by pro se defendant
While ClearOne intends to vigorously pursue collection of the damage awards, collectability of the judgments cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore, the jury's verdict and damage awards are subject to appeal by one or more of the defendants.
At trial and throughout the Intellectual Property Case, ClearOne was represented by the
ClearOne is a communications solutions company that develops and sells audio conferencing systems and other related products for audio, video, and web conferencing applications. The reliability, flexibility, and performance of ClearOne's comprehensive solutions create a natural communications environment, which saves organizations time and money by enabling more effective and efficient communication. For more information, visit ClearOne's website at www.clearone.com.
Contact: ClearOne Communications, Inc. Investor Relations (801) 303-3555
SOURCE ClearOne Communications, Inc.