|
''Ajaxo Inc. v. E *Trade Financial Corp.'', 187 Cal.App.4th 1295 (2010), is the second appeal on a dispute dated back to 1999.〔 During the original 2000 case, defendant E *Trade, an online financial services company, was found liable for maliciously and willfully misappropriating trade secrets pertaining to wireless stock trading technology acquired from the plaintiff, Ajaxo.〔〔 Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act E *Trade was required under a mutually signed Non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to keep Ajaxo’s trade secrets confidential.〔 After a jury trial in 2003, E *Trade was fined $1.3 million to be paid to Ajaxo for the misappropriation and breach of NDA. The court denied Ajaxo’s request for additional damages.〔 All parties appealed. In 2005 the California courts of appeal affirmed the original ruling but remanded the case back to the trial court to determine additional damages.〔 A jury verdict in 2008 rejected claims raised and demands for royalty damages from Ajaxo.〔 In trade secret cases it is common for a plaintiff to seek royalty damages when they are unable to show an actual loss or that the defendant received some inequitable benefit from the misappropriation.〔 In this case the court refused to allow evidence of royalty damages, claiming there were no net damages.〔 Ajaxo appealed. In 2010 the California courts of appeal once again remanded the case back to the trial court〔 reasoning that in such cases an exact quantitative measure of wrongful enrichment damages incurred by the plaintiff might not be sufficient to reject the claim of reasonable royalties based damages〔 ==Introduction== E *Trade, an online financial services company, was found liable for misappropriation of trade secrets pertaining to wireless stock trading technology that it had acquired from software company Ajaxo.〔 Initially awarded $1.3 million, Ajaxo requested additional damages.〔 The trial court denied the request because Ajaxo was unable to show that it had suffered any lost profits from the misappropriation or that E *Trade had received any inequitable benefit. The appeals court asserted that the decision was an error, and that Ajaxo would be allowed to present evidence of royalty damages.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|