An Illinois court has refused to dismiss Gold Medal Products Inc.'s lawsuit alleging that Bell Flavors and Fragrances Inc., with the help of a former Gold Medal employee, misappropriated trade secrets. Gold Medal Prods. Inc. v. Bell Flavors & Fragrances Inc., No. 17-4084 (N.D. Ill., entered March 2, 2018). Gold Medal alleged that its recipe and flavor profile for caramel Glaze Pop, a popcorn coating, are trade secrets, which the defendants allegedly misappropriated when the former employee helped Bell Flavors create a similar product for one of Gold Medal’s competitors. Denying Bell’s motion to dismiss, the court declined to establish whether Gold Medal could prove it owned trade secrets because the record was insufficient to support an analysis. The court rejected Bell’s argument that the recipe and flavor profile are not trade secrets because the ingredients are publicly listed and not patented by Gold Medal. Further, differences in the manufacturing…
Tag Archives trade secret
Kraft Heinz Foods faces a trade-secret suit alleging it distributed documents containing confidential and proprietary drawings and specifications for plastic caps created by one of its long-time vendors. AptarGroup, Inc. v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., No. 17521 (W.D. Pa., filed April 21, 2017). AptarGroup argues that Kraft distributed engineering and customer drawings providing detailed specifications for its bottle cap and closure designs documents after removing Aptar’s logos and confidentiality warnings. Aptar also asserts that among other disclosures, Kraft released specifications for its “breakthrough” snap-top cap used for Heinz’ inverted, top-down ketchup bottles. The complaint alleges that previous disclosures have included only “one or two ornamental designs, with no detailed specifications, and that Aptar notified Kraft of their breach of contract and asked Kraft to demand the return of the confidential information from all recipients. Claiming trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract, Aptar seeks a temporary restraining order, injunctive relief,…
A Minnesota federal court has granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss in a lawsuit alleging that Hormel Food Corp. stole trade secrets and breached contractual agreements in its joint venture to develop new methods of cooking bacon. Unitherm Food Sys. Inc. v. Hormel Food Corp., No. 14-4034 (D. Minn., order entered January 27, 2015). Unitherm alleged that it created the first viable method for pre-cooking sliced bacon—a process using spiral ovens and super-heated steam—and agreed to develop a commercially viable product with Hormel in June 2007. Unitherm asserted that Hormel disclosed its process, which Unitherm had not yet patented, to a rival company in violation of confidentiality agreements, which constituted an appropriation of trade secrets. The court disagreed, finding that Unitherm’s July 2009 patent application precluded its claim of trade secrets because patented processes cannot, by necessity, be trade secrets due to the disclosure of…
A Texas federal court has rejected the argument that the founders of Gina’s Italian Kitchen infringed New York Pizzeria, Inc.’s (NYPI’s) trademark flavor in its Italian dishes. New York Pizzeria, Inc. v. Syal, No. 13-335 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Tex., order entered October 20, 2014). NYPI alleged that its former vice president and his business partner stole trade secrets, including recipes, and used them to infringe NYPI’s distinctive flavors and plating methods at their new restaurant, Gina’s Italian Kitchen. They allegedly obtained a franchisee’s username and password and used it to log onto NYPI’s franchisee website, which held, among other things, recipes for NYPI’s menu items. The court refused to dismiss the claims for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Stored Communications Act stemming from alleged access to the franchisee website. The court then addressed NYPI’s Lanham Act claims. Asserting that “no special legal rule” prevents the…
The companies that make 5-Hour Energy have reportedly expanded a quest to keep their recipe from disclosure by seeking the application of a Tennessee law protecting trade secrets to requests made by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance and state attorney general for all of the product’s ingredients and their amounts. Information about the suit that Living Essentials and Innovation Ventures filed in Oregon seeking the same relief appears in Issue 488 of this Update. Thirty-three states have launched an investigation into 5-Hour Energy, which purportedly contains more caffeine and other stimulant ingredients than other similar products. See The Tennessean, June 24, 2013.
According to news sources, the companies that make 5-Hour Energy have filed a complaint in an Oregon state court seeking a declaration that the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) is not entitled to what the companies contend are trade secrets, that is, the amounts of ingredients used to make the energy shots. Oregon’s DOJ is apparently part of an executive committee leading a 33-state investigation into Innovation Ventures, LLC and Living Essentials, LLC and has demanded a list of ingredients, including their amounts, to decide whether the companies were justified in claiming that use of the product does not lead to a “crash.” While the companies reportedly provided the DOJ with copies of materials submitted to the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus to support their ad claims in 2007, they redacted the amounts, but not the ingredients, claiming that they are “highly confidential and proprietary…
A New York resident has filed a putative class action against Diamond Pet Foods and Amazon.com, seeking medical monitoring for pets that consumed recalled Salmonella-tainted pet food. Cohen v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc., d/b/a Diamond Pet Foods, No. 12-3299 (E.D.N.Y., filed July 2, 2012). Plaintiff Steven Cohen alleges that he fed his dogs Taste of the Wild® brand pet food, purchased from Amazon.com, and that they became ill, vomiting frequently, “which caused damage to Plaintiff’s property.” Seeking to certify a nationwide class and statewide subclass of consumers, the plaintiff alleges breach of implied and express warranty, strict products liability, violations of state consumer fraud laws, negligence, and unjust enrichment. In addition to medical monitoring, the plaintiff seeks actual damages or restitution, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. A Canadian non-profit representing the interests of foie gras producers, a New York-based foie gras producer and a company that operates restaurants in California have…
