Experienced litigator Denise Mingrone enforces and protect clients’ technology rights. She approaches each challenge on multiple fronts so as to achieve success whether it be in or out of court.
No stranger to the courtroom and having handled complex litigations for technology giants including Synopsys, Brocade, Applied Materials and Oracle, Denise seamlessly and efficiently manages large teams to secure victory. Clients appreciate her transparent collaboration and instinct for developing a strategy that ensures that only the “right” evidence is presented to the trier of fact.
The jury verdict Denise’s team obtained in the Netgear v. Ruckus Wireless patent trial, for example, surprised most because the team took over the case just weeks before jury selection, earning the number one place on that week’s “Top Jury Verdicts.” Prior to the Ruckus trial, Denise’s team similarly received accolades as “Top Verdict of the Year” for its jury win on behalf of Brocade against A10 Networks involving patent and copyright infringement. These victories were preceded by a trade secret win for MGA in the “Barbie v. Bratz” epic battle against Mattel, which earned Denise the “California Lawyer of the Year” award for her contributions.
In addition, Ms. Mingrone has led numerous software piracy matters, obtaining full relief in all such litigations which have reached resolution. Her work in this area encompasses both confidential as well as public investigations, all designed to assist clients in securing the protection of their intellectual property rights and ensuring they receive appropriate relief when those rights have been infringed.
As a former clerk to several federal judges, Denise appreciates that cases do not turn on facts alone. She has waged and won numerous battles both obtaining and defending pre-trial injunction motions. As one opponent noted, “She’s a fierce advocate who will go to the mat for her client’s position.”
A $700 million jury award for trade secrets misappropriation and fraud is the product of a collusive scheme to deceive the jury, claims title insurance and valuations provider Amrock, formerly known as Title Source, in its recent bid for a new trial.
The blockbuster award to technology start-up HouseCanary arose out of its 2015 contract to provide Amrock with access to its proprietary app designed to generate real estate valuations for house appraisers based on a proprietary automated valuation model. Several months later, Amrock accused HouseCanary of breaching the contract by failing to provide any usable products. Amrock terminated the agreement and sought a declaratory judgment in Texas state court that it need not pay HouseCanary the contracted $5 million in annual access fees. HouseCanary countersued, claiming that Amrock used HouseCanary’s products and offerings without paying for them, collected a “critical mass” of HouseCanary’s proprietary data, and ultimately used that information to “secretly replicate” HouseCanary’s protected technology and intellectual property. HouseCanary ultimately convinced the San Antonio jury that Amrock lied about its intended purpose in entering the contract and that Amrock misappropriated HouseCanary’s data and technology to develop competing property analytics and software. In March 2018, the jury awarded HouseCanary $200 million for trade secrets misappropriation, $400 million in punitive damages for the misappropriation, $34 million for fraud relating to the contract, and $68 million in punitive damages for the fraud. In October 2018, the judge upheld the award and ordered Amrock to also pay $29 million in prejudgment interest and $4.5 million in attorneys’ fees. READ MORE
In a testament to the wide breadth of potential trade secret protection to any number of industries, a court in the Western District of Washington denied a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Seattle Sperm Bank’s (SSB) DTSA and Washington Uniform Trade Secrets Act claims against its prior employees who set up a competing company, Cryobank America. Among other things, SSB alleged that in the months leading up to their departure, the employees copied 10 folders, including 67 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and 149 forms, to a portable hard-drive that they took with them upon their departure from SSB. READ MORE
A recent case in Florida is a reminder that when dealing with government entities, trade secrets may be disclosed to the public, especially if that information has been aggregated. The District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed a circuit court’s ruling ordering Broward County to produce information that Uber claimed were trade secrets. Uber and Broward County had entered into an agreement governing Uber’s services at the airport and Port Everglades. Part of the agreement required that Uber provide Broward County with monthly self-reports. These reports contained both aggregated data and granular data. The aggregated data was comprised of the total number of pickups and drop-offs at the airport and seaport, multiplied by the fee in each of those zones. The granular data included a time stamp, longitude and latitude of pick-ups or drop-offs, and the first three characters of the driver’s license plate. Per the agreement, Uber marked these monthly reports as containing trade secrets exempt from Florida’s Public Records Act, which Broward County was required to keep confidential. READ MORE
Just as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has shown a keen interest in better understanding policy concerns and the needs of business stakeholders in the area of trade secrets (see our coverage of both USPTO symposia here and here) against the backdrop of a new federal law, the EU’s IP office is also stepping up its focus on trade secrets following the EU Trade Secrets Directive in 2016 (our coverage here). READ MORE
In a dispute over ripped off recipes, counsel for victorious plaintiff Dalmatia Import Group hailed the jury verdict as the first of its kind under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, as we previously reported. Not so fast, sulked the defendants, Dalmatia’s erstwhile manufacturer Lancaster Fine Foods and distributor FoodMatch, in a filing this month. While acknowledging their defeat under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the defendants nevertheless urged the court not to enter judgment under the DTSA.
After a long political season that took many twists and turns due in part to revelations from WikiLeaks, the holiday season finally arrived. For many, that meant family traditions, time away from work, and massive amounts of college football, thanks to the current litany of televised bowl games.
Since the early days of this blog, we’ve been covering the ongoing legal battle involving ex-Korn Ferry recruiter David Nosal as it winds its way through the courts. The latest chapter in this saga came on December 8, 2016, when a Ninth Circuit panel clarified that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) does not criminalize innocent password sharing, in a published opinion denying Nosal’s request for a rehearing en banc. READ MORE
Over the years, it has proven difficult to fit software in any one category of IP protection. And while software’s ability to seemingly transcend patents, copyright, and trade secrets provides software developers and technology companies with options, it also makes it challenging to decide which will provide the best way to enforce those rights. There are obviously risks and benefits to each form of protection. However, the courts have reduced at least one risk: preemption of state trade secret laws by the Copyright Act. READ MORE
On February 2, 2016, Georgia State Senator Hunter Hill introduced Senate Bill 321 in the Georgia Senate. The bill is entitled “Commerce and Trade; state government; protections against public disclosure of certain information.” The bill has 36 co-sponsors, all of whom, like Hill, are Republican. READ MORE
On October 20, 2015, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in Round II of United States v. David Nosal. Both sides generally stuck with arguments from their briefs, with Nosal’s counsel arguing that upholding Nosal’s conviction under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (the “CFAA”) would lead to criminalization of relatively minor misappropriations of information, and the government arguing that the precedent would only apply in the employment context. READ MORE