The Allied<\/em> decision is the culmination of nine years of litigation between a father and his son relating to the manufacturing and marketing of industrial demolition equipment. In 2003, the son left the family business and joined a competitor. In 2006, the father\u2019s company sued the son\u2019s company for theft of trade secrets and won a substantial jury verdict, but the damages were based only on an \u201cunjust enrichment\u201d theory because the father\u2019s company could not prove that it had lost a customer or otherwise been directly harmed as a result of the son\u2019s theft of trade secrets. The trial court denied the father\u2019s company any prospective relief, and the denial of prospective relief was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit.<\/p>\n After the first trial, the son\u2019s company continued to use the father\u2019s company\u2019s trade secrets in its products. In response, in 2013, the father\u2019s company filed a new suit, seeking damages for the ongoing use of its trade secrets. The district court dismissed that suit, holding that the statute of limitations for the theft of trade secrets (which had occurred in 2003 and continued thereafter) had run.<\/p>\n On appeal, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the statute of limitations applied to bar the claims, but that the case should also have been dismissed based on the preclusive effect of the prior judgment. In essence, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the plaintiff had already sought and been denied prospective relief at trial. The \u201cnew\u201d claim based on the defendant\u2019s continuing conduct was barred by the prior judgment.<\/p>\n Allied<\/em> heavily underscores the need to \u201cget it right\u201d in the first instance and prove lost profits, lost customers, or other direct harm to the plaintiff\u2019s business. In Allied<\/em>, the plaintiff\u2019s failure to do so in the first trial ultimately led to the plaintiff\u2019s inability to recover for ongoing harm caused by the defendant.<\/p>\n Read Gregory’s bio<\/a>. View all posts by Gregory S. Bombard<\/a><\/span>\u00a0\u2192<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Lawrence H. Pockers and Gregory S. Bombard Trade secret plaintiffs have a bevy of remedies available. On the monetary remedies side, plaintiffs often choose to measure their damages based on the profits realized by their competitor. Focusing on the defendant\u2019s wrongfully-gained profits is in many cases easier than proving that the plaintiff\u2019s profits diminished as … <\/p>\n![\"bombardgregory\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/tradesecretslaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/18\/2015\/12\/bombardgregory.jpg\")
<\/a>About Gregory S. Bombard<\/h2>\n