Court Shelves Patent and Trade Secret Claims

Posted on | March 20, 2008 | No Comments

2008-1219 Putnam v. Henkel Consumer
ND/GA 1:05-cv-2011

Plaintiffs Michael Putnam and WEP Enterprises appeal Judge Beverly Martin’s grant of summary judgments and a directed verdict to Henkel Consumer (fka Manco).  Plaintiffs own 5,697,302 directed to shelf liners and trade secrets related to their ShelfCover brand.  Henkel is a competitor.  After failed discussions between the two, both came out with an anti-microbial shelf system and litigation ensued:  plaintiff claimed infringement and that defendants got the idea from the parties’ discussions, constituting a theft of trade secrets and breach of the non-disclosure agreement.

On summary judgment, the court tossed the breach of contract and theft of trade secret claims.  Showing clear irritability with some of WEP’s responses to Henkel’s Statement of Facts, the court concluded the WEP’s “plan” to come out with an antimicrobial shelf liner was not covered by Georgia’s Trade Secret Act nor was such information “disclosed” or “used” by WEP.  Absent any proof that Henkel improperly used information from WEP, the court also tossed the breach of contract (non-disclosure) claim.

The court gave a mixed result on Henkel’s summary judgment of non-infringement, granting it as to four products but denying it as to two others finding that WEP put forth sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury could find infringement. 

Despite this ruling, however, during the subsequent jury trial and at the close of Putnam’s case, the court summarily granted to Henkel a directed verdict.

NOTE: Henkel’s has cross-appealed (2008-1241) the court’s claim construction decision.

Comments