On July 2, 2024, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued its decision regarding a three-year, 124 day trade secret trial in which Halloran Sage partners Joseph Fortner and Jennifer Pedevillano successfully obtained judgment in favor of their client, Indue Sales & Service (“Indue”). The Plaintiff, Dur-A-Flex, claimed that Indue misappropriated the Plaintiff’s trade secrets when a former employee of Plaintiff helped develop Indue’s formula for a cementitious urethane flooring top coat used in food service, commercial and industrial settings. To rebut those claims, Joe and Jen introduced evidence regarding Indue’s development process, and established the distinctiveness of their client’s formulas, ingredients, and product. This included a comparative demonstration of the parties’ products, which allowed their expert to explain and demonstrate how the differences in formulas and ingredients were the reason for differences in the characteristics and performances of the respective products.
The Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s decision in favor of Indue, and the appeal was spearheaded and argued by members of the Halloran Sage Appellate Team in September of 2023.
In its 91-page decision, the Supreme Court addressed the entirety of the trial and provided clarification on many aspects of Connecticut trade secret law, including reversing the trial court’s assumption regarding knowledge gained merely because a person was employed. With respect to Indue, the Court concluded that the trial court’s decision was well-supported by the evidence, and that Indue’s cementitious urethane formula both differed significantly from that of the Plaintiff, and was a “substantially different destination” from that of the Plaintiff. In doing so, the Court relied upon the facts (including the demonstration) presented by the Halloran Sage trial team as the basis for upholding the trial court’s conclusions. As a result, judgment was affirmed in favor of Indue.
In addition, the Supreme Court reviewed an award of sanctions which had been entered in favor of Indue and other defendants as a result of the spoliation of evidence by Plaintiff during the trial. In what appears to be a unique set of circumstances, while Attorney Fortner was using Plaintiff’s social media posts to challenge a witness for the Plaintiff regarding Dur-A-Flex’s claims that the equipment in its facility was a “trade secret,” Dur-A-Flex’s then-president texted an instruction to its marketing personnel to remove pictures from social media which rebutted those claims. In affirming the award of attorneys fees and punitive sanctions, the Supreme Court stated that it had “little difficulty” concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the sanctions, and that the Plaintiff’s misconduct was “egregious” and “an affront to the integrity of the court.”
Joe and Jen gratefully appreciate the help and support of our client Indue, its president Tom Scanlan, and of its personnel; and of our expert Vern Batdorf. They are especially grateful for all the support provided to them by personnel within at the Firm in helping them navigate this long, winding, and ultimately successful road.
While the decision has not yet been published in the Connecticut Reports, it can be found as a Slip Opinion at https://www.jud.ct.gov//external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR349/CR349.25.pdf.
Read Law 360’s article here.
If you have further questions, you can contact Joseph Fortner or Jennifer Pedevillano.