Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A company developed a specialized vehicle-mounted stairway, with design work primarily performed by the founder’s son, who was promised equity in the business but never received it due to the majority owner’s repeated refusals. The son, with his father’s assistance, eventually obtained a patent for the design, which he used as leverage to seek compensation. Negotiations between the parties failed, leading to the father’s removal as company president and the company filing suit against both the father and son. The company alleged breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, business conspiracy, unjust enrichment, fraud, and breach of contract, while the son counterclaimed for patent infringement.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the father and son on all claims except a breach of contract claim against the father and the son’s patent counterclaim. The court found most claims time-barred or unsupported by evidence, and later, the company voluntarily dismissed its remaining claim. The son’s patent was invalidated by a jury. The district court also awarded attorneys’ fees and costs to the father as the prevailing party under the company’s operating agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that the company’s claims were either time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations or failed on the merits, as there was no evidence the son benefited from the patent or that he had signed a non-disclosure agreement. The court also affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to the father, finding no error in the district court’s application of Delaware law or its determination of the prevailing party. View "Mission Integrated Technologies, LLC v. Clemente" on Justia Law

A group of employees at a wealth management firm in Richmond, Virginia, decided to leave their employer and establish a competing business. These employees, who had access to proprietary client information, had signed employment agreements with their former employer that included non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses. The agreements also addressed the industry-wide Protocol for Broker Recruiting, which generally allows departing financial advisors to take certain client information and solicit former clients if specific procedures are followed. However, the agreements stated that their terms would control over the Protocol in the event of any conflict. After resigning, the employees formed a new firm and began contacting their former clients, resulting in the loss of hundreds of accounts and significant assets for their previous employer.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the former employer, barring the former employees and their new firm from contacting former clients or using confidential information. The district court found a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the trade secrets claims against all defendants, reasoning that even under the Protocol, the defendants’ conduct constituted impermissible “raiding.” The court also found that the employer would likely suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest favored injunctive relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of the Protocol and the employment agreements. The Fourth Circuit held that the Protocol’s “raiding” exception applies only to actions by outside firms targeting another firm’s employees, not to employees leaving to form their own business. The court concluded that the employment agreements, not the Protocol, governed the former employees’ conduct and supported the injunction against them. However, because the new firm was not a party to those agreements, the injunction as to the new firm was vacated. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the injunction against the former employees but vacated it as to the new firm. View "Salomon & Ludwin, LLC v. Winters" on Justia Law

CPI Security Systems, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Vivint Smart Home, Inc., alleging that Vivint engaged in deceptive practices to lure away CPI’s customers. Vivint sales representatives falsely claimed that Vivint had acquired CPI, that CPI was going out of business, or that Vivint needed to upgrade CPI’s equipment. These tactics led many CPI customers to switch to Vivint, causing significant losses for CPI. A jury found Vivint liable for violating the Lanham Act, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), and for committing the common-law torts of unfair competition and tortious interference with contracts. The jury awarded CPI $49.7 million in compensatory damages and $140 million in punitive damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina upheld the jury’s verdict. Vivint appealed, raising several issues, including the requirement of CPI’s reliance on false statements for the UDTPA claim, the sufficiency of evidence supporting the damages award, the application of North Carolina’s cap on punitive damages, and the admission of prejudicial evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found no reversible error. The court held that CPI was not required to prove its own reliance on Vivint’s false statements to establish a UDTPA claim, as the claim was based on unfair competition rather than fraud. The court also found that the evidence presented by CPI was sufficient to support the jury’s damages award. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court correctly applied North Carolina’s cap on punitive damages by considering the total compensatory damages awarded. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vivint’s motion to bifurcate the trial or in its evidentiary rulings. The reassignment of the trial judge post-trial did not warrant a new trial. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc." on Justia Law

Wudi Industrial (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (Wudi) and Wai L. Wong, along with Wong’s business entity GT Omega Racing, Ltd. (collectively Wong), were involved in a trademark dispute over the use of the "GTRACING" and "GT OMEGA RACING" marks. Wudi registered the "GTRACING" trademark in 2017, and Wong initiated cancellation proceedings, claiming prior use of a similar mark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled in favor of Wong in 2020. Wudi sought review in the Eastern District of Virginia, leading to a settlement agreement in 2021, which included geographic and product-based restrictions on Wudi’s use of the "GTRACING" mark, particularly in Europe.The district court granted a stay pending compliance with the settlement agreement. Wong later alleged that Wudi breached the agreement by violating social media restrictions within the European Carve-Out. The district court found Wudi in violation and ordered specific performance. Wudi appealed, and the Fourth Circuit remanded for further proceedings, requiring the district court to comply with procedural requirements for injunctive relief.On remand, the district court issued an injunction, finding that Wudi breached the settlement agreement by using prohibited terms on social media within the European Carve-Out. The court applied the eBay factors, concluding that Wong suffered irreparable harm, monetary damages were inadequate, the balance of hardships favored Wong, and the public interest supported enforcing the agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s injunction. The court held that the district court had the authority to enforce the settlement agreement, the eBay factors were properly applied, and Wudi’s contentions regarding extraterritoriality, parol evidence, unclean hands, and attorney’s fees were without merit. The injunction was upheld, requiring Wudi to comply with the settlement agreement’s terms. View "Wudi Industrial (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Wong" on Justia Law

Sysco Machinery Corporation, a Taiwanese company, accused DCS USA Corporation, a North Carolina company, of business torts related to their manufacturer-distributor relationship. Sysco alleged that after some of its employees left to form a competitor, Cymtek Solutions, Inc., DCS sold machines made by Cymtek using Sysco's confidential information. Sysco claimed these diverted contracts were worth millions of dollars.Sysco first filed suit in Taiwan, where it claims to have won a preliminary injunction against Cymtek. Sysco then filed a suit in the Eastern District of North Carolina, which it voluntarily dismissed, followed by a suit in the District of Massachusetts, which was dismissed. Finally, Sysco returned to the Eastern District of North Carolina, where it brought claims for trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The district court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and denied Sysco's post-judgment leave to amend its complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Sysco's trade secret misappropriation claim, finding that Sysco did not plausibly allege the existence of a valid trade secret or that DCS misappropriated it. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Sysco's other claims, noting that Sysco did not sufficiently develop its arguments for copyright infringement, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Finally, the court upheld the district court's denial of Sysco's motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to amend the complaint, citing Sysco's repeated failure to state a claim and the potential prejudice to DCS. View "Sysco Machinery Corp. v. DCS USA Corp." on Justia Law

Brainchild Surgical Devices, LLC, a medical device developer, entered into a contract with CPA Global Limited for patent renewal services. Brainchild alleged that CPA overcharged it by marking up fees beyond the actual costs and sued for breach of contract and fraud. The district court excluded Brainchild’s expert witnesses, granted summary judgment for CPA on the breach of contract claim, dismissed the fraud claim, and denied leave to amend the fraud claim.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Brainchild’s fraud claim for lack of particularity and denied leave to amend. The court granted summary judgment for CPA on the breach of contract claim, finding that Brainchild’s theories were inconsistent with the contract’s terms. The court excluded Brainchild’s expert witnesses, David Cass and John Keogh, for offering legal conclusions and lacking qualifications.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s exclusion of Cass’ testimony due to lack of qualification and improper legal conclusions. The court also affirmed the exclusion of Keogh’s testimony for failing to disclose the bases of his opinions and offering legal conclusions but reversed the decision to disqualify him based on confidential information. The court agreed with the district court that Brainchild’s pass-through cost and implied covenant of good faith theories failed to overcome summary judgment. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for CPA on the theory that CPA applied Country Charges unrelated to the required personnel, infrastructure, and third parties for renewals in particular jurisdictions. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this theory. The court also affirmed the denial of leave to amend the fraud claim. View "Brainchild Surgical Devices, LLC v. CPA Global Limited" on Justia Law

Honeywell International, a Delaware corporation, and OPTO Electronics, a Japanese company, are competitors in the barcode-scanning equipment market. In May 2019, Honeywell sued OPTO for patent infringement, alleging that OPTO's barcode products infringed on seven of Honeywell's patents. The parties settled in January 2020 with a patent-licensing agreement, allowing OPTO to use Honeywell's patents in exchange for royalty payments. In March 2021, Honeywell audited OPTO and claimed that OPTO had underreported its revenues, leading to a dispute over the definition of "2D Barcode Products." Honeywell then sued OPTO for breach of contract in September 2021, alleging unpaid royalties.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina handled the case. A jury found that OPTO's laser-scanning barcode readers were "2D Barcode Products" but awarded Honeywell only $859,741. The district court also rejected OPTO's counterclaim of patent misuse, concluding that Honeywell had not engaged in such conduct. Both parties filed post-trial motions, which the district court denied. Honeywell sought attorney's fees, and OPTO moved to set aside the jury verdict, but both requests were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that it could not reach the merits because the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the appeal due to the patent-related counterclaim asserted by OPTO. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal, allowing the parallel appeal pending in the Federal Circuit to proceed. The main holding was that the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals involving patent claims and counterclaims, even if the primary dispute is over a contract. View "Honeywell International, Inc. v. OPTO Electronics Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

Westmont Living, Inc., a California corporation operating retirement communities and assisted living facilities, filed a lawsuit against Retirement Unlimited, Inc. (RUI), a Virginia corporation, alleging trademark infringement. Westmont Living claimed that RUI's use of the name "The Westmont at Short Pump" for its new facility in Virginia created a likelihood of confusion with Westmont Living's federally registered "Westmont Living" trademarks, violating the Lanham Act and related laws. Westmont Living sought an injunction and damages.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of RUI, concluding that consumer confusion was impossible because the parties operated in entirely distinct geographic markets. The court relied on the Second Circuit's decision in Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., which held that no likelihood of confusion exists when parties use their marks in separate and distinct markets.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court's judgment. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred by relying solely on the geographic separation of the parties' physical facilities without considering other relevant factors that might bear on the likelihood of confusion. The court emphasized that modern advertising and the national scope of both parties' marketing efforts necessitate a broader analysis. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings to consider the various factors relevant to determining the likelihood of confusion, including the parties' competitive marketing, the locations from which they solicit and draw customers, and the scope of their reputations. View "Westmont Living, Inc. v. Retirement Unlimited, Inc." on Justia Law

Jason and Kacie Highsmith hired Shelter, LLC to manage a home renovation project and later contracted with Design Gaps, Inc. to design and install cabinets and closets. The contracts required arbitration for disputes but did not specify completion dates. Design Gaps failed to meet multiple promised deadlines, leading the Highsmiths to terminate the contracts and hire another company. The Highsmiths shared Design Gaps' copyrighted drawings with the new contractor. They then filed for arbitration, alleging breach of contract and other claims, while Design Gaps counterclaimed for various issues, including copyright infringement.The arbitrator held a three-day hearing, during which the Highsmiths presented multiple witnesses, while Design Gaps only presented David Glover. The arbitrator found in favor of the Highsmiths, awarding them damages and attorney’s fees, and denied Design Gaps' counterclaims, including the copyright claim, citing fair use and lack of evidence for copyright registration.Design Gaps petitioned the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina to vacate the arbitration award, arguing the arbitrator disregarded the law and failed to issue a reasoned award. The district court denied the petition and confirmed the arbitration award, also granting the Highsmiths' motion for attorney’s fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the appeal, citing lack of federal jurisdiction based on the precedent set in Friedler v. Stifel, Nicolaus, & Co., which held that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over motions to vacate arbitration awards unless there is an independent basis for federal jurisdiction beyond the Federal Arbitration Act. The court concluded that the petition did not meet this requirement. View "Design Gaps, Inc. v. Shelter, LLC" on Justia Law

Moke America LLC and Moke International Limited, along with Moke USA, LLC, are competing for the U.S. trademark rights to the "MOKE" mark, used for their low-speed, open-air vehicles. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that "MOKE" is a generic term for these vehicles, meaning it cannot be a trademark owned by either party. This finding was based on the history of the Moke vehicles, which were originally produced by the British Motor Corporation (BMC) and later by other manufacturers, and the term "Moke" becoming synonymous with a style of vehicle.The district court's decision followed a bench trial where Moke America failed to prove its priority of use. The court then considered whether the MOKE mark was distinctive or generic. Both parties argued that the mark was inherently distinctive, but the court found it to be generic based on the evidence presented, including the parties' marketing efforts and the testimony of a Moke America witness.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court correctly placed the burden on the parties to prove that "MOKE" is not a generic term. However, the Fourth Circuit found that the evidence was insufficient to either affirm or outright reverse the district court's finding of genericness. The court noted that more evidence is needed to determine whether "MOKE" is a generic term or an inherently distinctive mark that was abandoned by its original owner, BMC.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to gather additional evidence on the distinctiveness or genericness of the "MOKE" mark. The parties will continue to bear the burden of proving that the mark is not generic. The court suggested that appointing a disinterested expert witness might be helpful in resolving the issue. View "Moke America LLC v. Moke International Limited" on Justia Law