Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 94 Filed 03/27/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 6834
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ROBOTICVISIONTECH, INC.,
`
`ABB INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`Defendant.
`
`C.A. No. 22-1257-GBW
`
`John W. Shaw, Andrew Russell, Nathan Roger Hoeschen, SHAW KELLER LLP, Wilmington,
`DE; Anna G. Phillips, John C. Rozendaal, Kristina C. Kelly, Michael E. Joffre, William H.
`Milliken, STERN KESSLER PLLC, Washington, D.C.
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler, Andrew R. Sommer, Gregory S. Bombard, GREENBERG TRAURIG
`LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brian A. Biggs, DLA PIPER LLP, Wilmington, DE
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`March 27, 2024
`Wilmington, Delaware
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 94 Filed 03/27/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 6835
`
`GREGORY B. WILLIAMS
`U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Pending before the Court is Defendant ABB, Inc.'s partial motion to dismiss Plaintiff
`
`RoboticVISIONTech, Inc.'s ("RVT") trade secret misappropriation claims.1 D.I. 11. For the
`
`reasons set forth below, the Court grants ABB ' s motion.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The parties to this action are RVT ( a company that sells machine vision software for use
`
`m automation. and robotics technolo~ies) and ABB ( a co~pany that sells autom~bile
`
`manufacturing robots). RVT alleges that ABB hired away RVT's chief scientist, Dr. Remus Boca,
`
`and used trade secrets that were in Dr. Boca' s possession to develop FlexVision, ABB ' s product.
`
`See D.I. 16 at 4-5 . RVT contends that FlexVision is similar to its product, eVisionFactory, ahd
`
`that the reason those two products are similar is because ABB incorporated RVT's trade secrets
`
`into FlexVision's source code. Id.
`
`Dr. Boca was one of the main architects behind the eVisionFactory source code. Id. But,
`
`in 2010, Dr. Boca left RVT and joined ABB. Id. RVT contends that, when he left, Dr. Boca
`
`breached his employment contract by failing to return four ( 4) RVT-issued devices (including two
`
`computers and two hard drives) that contained copies of RVT' s source code. See D.I. 16 at 4.
`
`Moreover, when Dr. Boca eventually did return those devices, RVT contends that all the
`
`information previously contained on those devices had been deleted.
`
`Id. As a result, RVT
`
`contends that ABB, through Dr. Boca, obtained RVT's trade secrets, and used those trade secrets
`
`to build its competing product, FlexVision. See id. at 5-7.
`
`1 Also pending before the Court are a number of discovery disputes between the parties. The
`Court will resolve those issues at a later date.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 94 Filed 03/27/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 6836
`
`RVT filed this case, alleging patent infringement, copyright infringement, and trade-secret
`
`misappropriation, after it obtained the product manual for ABB 's FlexVision product from an
`
`"integrator," i.e., a services firm that is responsible for integrating machine technology and
`
`software from multiple providers. Id. at 4. In support of its claim that Flex Vision incorporates its
`
`trade secrets, RVT points to (1) public marketing materials and statements that ABB made about
`
`FlexVision in 2016 and 2017; (2) the FlexVision product manual that ABB provides to customers
`
`who buy FlexVision; and (3) a comparison of those marketing materials, statements, and manuals
`
`with the capabilities ofRVT' s prod~ct, eVisionFactory. See, ~.g. , D.I. 1 at ,r 37; id. , Ex._7.
`
`In response, ABB filed this motion, and asks the Court to dismiss RVT' s trade secret
`
`misappropriation claims on the grounds that those claims are time-barred by the applicable three(cid:173)
`
`year statute oflimitations for federal and Delaware trade secret misappropriation claims.2 See D.I.
`
`12. ABB argues that the statute oflimitations began to run once RVT had inquiry notice of ABB ' s
`
`potential misappropriation of its trade secrets. ABB contends that RVT obtained that notice in
`
`either 2010 (when Dr. Boca allegedly provided RVT's trade secrets to ABB) or, alternatively, in
`
`2015 (when ABB released FlexVision). Id.
`
`RVT disagrees, and contends that ABB ' s launch of Flex Vision, and its public marketing
`
`materials and statements related to that product, were not sufficient to put it on inquiry notice of
`
`its potential trade secret misappropriation claims against ABB. See D.I. 16. RVT argues that it
`
`was only able to piece together ABB ' s purported trade secret misappropriation in 2021 , after it
`
`heard rumors from its customers that ABB had misappropriated its trade secrets and obtained a
`
`2 RVT filed its complaint on September 22, 2022. Thus, ABB argues that RVT's claims are
`time-barred because those claims were filed after September 22, 2019.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 94 Filed 03/27/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 6837
`
`copy of Flex Vision' s product manual from a RVT customer. RVT contends that it was not able
`
`to obtain that product manual before 2021 , because (1) ABB only provides that product manual to
`
`purchasers of Flex Vision and, as a competitor, ABB would not sell that product to RVT; and (2)
`
`RVT pressuring its customers to share operational details of ABB's product would have
`
`"border[ed] on corporate espionage." Id. at 5-6, 17-18.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL ST AND ARD
`
`A. Motion to Dismiss
`
`• To state a claim on which relief can be granted, a Gomplaint must contain "a-short and
`
`plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .. " Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`8(a)(2). Such a claim must plausibly suggest "facts sufficient to ' draw the reasonable inference
`
`that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. "' Doe v. Princeton Univ. , 30 F.4th 335,
`
`342 (3d Cir. 2022) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)) (citing Bell At!. Corp. v.
`
`Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)). "A claim is facially plausible 'when the plaintiff pleads
`
`factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
`
`for the misconduct alleged. '" Klotz v. Celentano Stadtmauer & Walentowicz LLP, 991 F.3d 458,
`
`462 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). But the Court will '" disregard legal
`
`conclusions and recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory
`
`statements."' Princeton Univ. , 30 F.4th at 342 (quoting Davis v. Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d 333, 341
`
`(3d Cir. 2016)). Under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all factual allegations in the
`
`Complaint and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Fed. Trade
`
`Comm 'n v. AbbVie Inc, 976 F.3d 327, 351 (3d Cir. 2020).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 94 Filed 03/27/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 6838
`
`B.
`
`Statute of Limitations
`
`Under both the Defend Trade Secrets Act ("DTSA") (Count VII) and the Delaware
`
`Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("Delaware UTSA") (Count VIII), a plaintiff must bring its claim
`
`within three (3) years of the date the misappropriation "is discovered or by the exercise of
`
`reasonable diligence should have been discovered." See 18 U.S.C. § 1836(d); 6 Del. C. § 2006.
`
`Under Delaware law, the statute of limitations begins to run when a plaintiff has (1) actual notice
`
`of the basis for the cause of action or (2) has inquiry notice-i.e., "notice of facts from which the
`
`b~is for the cause of actio°: could have been discove~ed by the exercise of reas_onable diligence."
`
`Ocimum Biosolutions (India) Ltd v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd, 2019 WL 6726836, at *9 (Del. Super.
`
`Ct. Dec. 4, 2019), ajf'd, 247 A.3d 674 (Del. 2021). "A party is on inquiry notice when it has facts
`
`sufficient to make it suspicious or that ought to make it suspicious. Those facts effectively must
`
`rise to the level of a 'red flag ' that would prompt a prudent person of ordinary intelligence to
`
`further investigate a possible claim." Id. at 10 (cleaned up).
`
`While the statute of limitations is technically an affirmative defense, the Court will
`
`consider that defense at the motion to dismiss stage if "the time alleged in the statement of [the]
`
`claim shows that the cause of action has not been brought within the statute of limitations."
`
`Schmidt v. Skolas, 770 F.3d 241,249 (3d Cir. 2014) (internal citations omitted). However, "if the ·
`
`bar is not apparent on the face of the complaint, then it may not afford the basis for a dismissal of
`
`the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6)." Id. (internal citations omitted).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`A.
`
`The Court Grants ABB's Motion to Dismiss RVT's Trade Secret
`Misappropriation Claims Because Those Claims Are Time-Barred.
`
`For the reasons stated below, the Court agrees with ABB that RVT obtained inquiry notice
`
`of its trade secret misappropriation claim by, at the latest, ABB ' s launch of FlexVision.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 94 Filed 03/27/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 6839
`
`Accordingly, the Court grants ABB's motion to dismiss those claims as time-barred because ABB
`
`launched FlexVision in 2015-more than three (3) years prior to RVT's filing of its complaint.
`
`See D.I. 1 at 135.
`
`i. The Court Finds that RVT Obtained Inquiry Notice oflts Trade Secret
`to Return
`Misappropriation Claims When Dr. Boca Failed
`Confidential Information to RVT.
`
`In some cases, a plaintiff can be deemed to have mqurry notice of its potential
`
`misappropriation claim against a competitor when the plaintiffs employee (1) fails to return
`
`confidential informatio_n to the plaintiff upon ter:rnination of their emploYJ?ent, and (2) joins the
`
`plaintiffs competitor. See Alta Devices, Inc. v. LG Elecs. , Inc., 2019 WL 1924992, No. 18-CV-
`
`00404-LHK, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2019); Wang v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. , No. C 121-
`
`05579-WHA, 2014 WL 1410346, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2014). For example, in Wang, the
`
`court found that the plaintiff was on inquiry notice after one of its employees breached their non(cid:173)
`
`disclosure agreement by (a) failing to return documents that contained the plaintiff's trade secrets
`
`and (b) joining a competitor while being in possession of those trade secrets. 2014 WL 1410346
`
`at *7.
`
`Specifically, the parties in Wang had a non-disclosure agreement that stated: "Upon
`
`termination or expiration of the Agreement, or upon written request of [Wang], [defendant] shall
`
`promptly return to [Wang] all documents and other tangible materials representing the
`
`Confidential Information and all copies thereof." Id. at 2. The court found that the defendant had
`
`"violated his agreement to return the documents containing Wang's alleged trade secrets" and that
`
`such a breach was sufficient to put the plaintiff on inquiry notice because the plaintiff knew that
`
`the defendant had joined a competitor and had "never asked for relief from his duty to return the
`
`trade secrets." Id. at 7. Similarly, in Alta Devices, the court found that a plaintiff was on inquiry
`
`notice when the defendant breached its duty to return confidential information that it had received
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 94 Filed 03/27/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 6840
`
`pursuant to an NDA and sought to engage in work within the plaintiff's field. 2019 WL 1924992
`
`at* 13.
`
`The Court agrees with ABB that the instant case is like Wang and Alta Devices because
`
`RVT pied in its complaint that Dr. Boca (1) possessed RVT's trade secrets, (2) had a duty to return
`
`those trade secrets to RVT upon termination of his employment with RVT, (3) failed to return
`
`those trade secrets, and (4) possessed those trade secrets when he joined ABB. See, e.g., D.I. 1,
`
`,r,r 17-19, 21-22, 126-127. Specifically, RVT's complaint alleges that Dr. Boca had "full and
`
`unfettered access ~o [RVT's] source code" _because he was "in poss.ession of two RVT-issue.d
`
`laptops and two RVT-issued external hard drives, which contained RVT's confidential and
`
`proprietary information" related to RVT' s product, e VisionF actory. Id. at 21 . The complaint also
`
`alleges that Dr. Boca was subject to an NDA, and that RVT's "company policy required employees
`
`to return work-issued laptops and hard drives upon leaving the employ of RVT." Id. at ,r,r 19, 21.
`
`RVT further alleges that Dr. Boca violated that policy by failing to return those devices to RVT
`
`upon its request and the information previously contained within those devices had been deleted
`by the time those devices were finally returned to RVT. Id. at ,r 22.
`
`RVT attempts to distinguish Wang and Alta Devices on the grounds that there was "no
`
`material dispute of fact" in those cases "that the misappropriation would have been discoverable
`
`upon reasonable investigation." D.I. 16 at 15. Here, RVT contends that ABB misappropriated
`
`RVT' s trade secrets to develop the source code of its product, Flex Vision, and that RVT had no
`
`way to access ABB's confidential source code. Id. at 5. As a result, RVT contends that its injury
`
`was "inherently unknowable" and, thus, a reasonable investigation would not have identified
`
`ABB's misappropriation. Id. at 14-15. Also, RVT contends that Dr. Boca concealed the trade
`
`secrets that he took to ABB by deleting that information from his laptops and hard drives before
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 94 Filed 03/27/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 6841
`
`returning those devices to ABB. Id. Therefore, RVT had no way of knowing what, if any,
`
`confidential information was given to ABB by Dr. Boca. Id. Furthermore, RVT contends that a
`
`demand letter accusing ABB or Dr. Boca of misappropriation would have been "futile" because it
`
`had "no reason to believe that ABB would have responded with anything other than a blanket and
`
`emphatic denial" to any allegation of misappropriating RVT' s trade secrets. Id. at 18.
`
`The Court, however, is not persuaded by RVT' s arguments that Wang and Alta Devices are
`
`distinguishable. As an initial matter, the Court is not convinced that RVT needed the specific
`
`details of how: Flex Vision operates to qe on inquiry notice of AJ3B' s alleged misappropri_ation,
`
`because the courts in Wang and Alta Devices found that a party is put on inquiry notice of its
`
`potential claim against a competitor when that party's former employee retains confidential
`
`information in breach of that employee's NDA and joins a competitor. See Alta Devices, 2019
`
`WL 1924992 at *13; Wang, 2014 WL 1410346 at *7. Thus, those cases found that an employee's
`
`conduct by itself can be sufficient to place a party on inquiry notice of its misappropriation claim.
`
`See id.
`
`Similarly, the Court is not convinced by RVT's argument that it lacked inquiry notice
`
`because it did not know what information Dr. Boca shared with ABB . D.I. 16 at 15. Given that
`
`Dr. Boca was RVT' s Chief Scientist, RVT knew, or should have known, that Dr. Boca's devices
`
`likely contained RVT's trade secrets. Thus, Dr. Boca's failure to return those devices until more
`
`than two months after he joined RVT's competitor, following multiple requests from RVT that he
`
`return those devices, was sufficient to put RVT on inquiry notice that Dr. Boca may have
`
`misappropriated RVT's trade secrets. See D.l. 1,, 22. To the extent that RVT argues that Dr.
`
`Boca might have deleted any confidential information from his devices before joining ABB, the
`
`Court is not persuaded by that argument because R VT pled that Dr. Boca had access to RVT' s
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 94 Filed 03/27/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 6842
`
`source code "within his own knowledge as an architect of the code." D.I. 1 at~ 126. As a result,
`
`RVT knew, or should have known, that ABB had access to RVT's trade secrets and, therefore, had
`
`a duty to conduct a diligent inquiry to allay those suspicions. See Ocimum, 2019 WL 6726836 at
`
`*11.
`
`To be clear, the Court does not find that a former employee' s retention of confidential
`
`information upon acceptance of a job offer from a competitor will always put their former
`
`employer on inquiry notice of a potential trade secret misappropriation claim against the company
`
`that hired.that employee. A party tpat has, or should have b~come, suspicious that s01:neone has
`
`misappropriated its trade secrets is not on inquiry notice of its potential claim against a second(cid:173)
`
`party if the suspicious party conducts a diligent inquiry that allays its suspicions. See id. A party
`
`is also entitled to reasonably rely on a second party' s representations that it has not misappropriated
`
`the first party's trade secrets. See id. ; Raytheon Co. v. Indigo Sys. Corp., 688 F.3d 1311 , 1318
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Thus, for example, if Dr. Boca had told RVT that he had deleted any confidential
`
`information from the devices he failed to return to RVT, then RVT may have been entitled to rely
`
`on that statement-if such reliance would have been reasonable-and, as a result, might not have
`
`had inquiry notice of its potential trade secret misappropriation claim. See id. In fact, however,
`
`RVT did not even ask Dr. Boca to confirm that his work-issued devices had been wiped prior to
`
`his joining ABB. See D.I. 1. RVT also did not ask ABB to confirm that it was not using RVT's
`
`trade secrets. See id. Accordingly, the Court finds that RVT failed to timely conduct a diligent
`
`inquiry into whether Dr. Boca or ABB had misappropriated its trade secrets after a reasonable
`
`person would have been, or should have been, suspicious that Dr. Boca or ABB had
`
`misappropriated RVT's trade secrets. See Ocimum, 2019 WL 6726836 at *11.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 94 Filed 03/27/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 6843
`
`The Court is also not convinced by RVT's argument that Accenture Glob. Servs. GmbH v.
`
`Guidewire Software Inc. compels a different result. See D.I. 16 at 13; 691 F. Supp. 2d 577, 591-
`
`594 (D. Del. 2010). In Accenture, the plaintiff reviewed the defendant's website and saw "high(cid:173)
`
`level similarities" between the parties' products, including similar marketing, names, and
`
`functional product descriptions. See 691 F. Supp. 2d at 592-593. Those similarities gave the
`
`plaintiff "concern" that the defendant had copied its patent-pending inventions, but did not make
`
`it suspect the defendant of misappropriating its trade secrets. Id. at 594. Thus, the plaintiff did
`
`not s1:1e the defendant for alleg~dly misappropriating its trade secrets at that time. rd. Instead, the
`
`plaintiff sued the defendant only after the parties entered into a joint business venture that provided
`
`the plaintiff access to technical information about the defendant' s product. Id at 592-593. After
`
`reviewing that technical information, the plaintiff inferred that the defendant had obtained the
`
`plaintiffs trade secrets through a third-party for whom both the plaintiff and defendant had done
`
`work. Id. However, the plaintiff was unaware of precisely how the defendant had obtained those
`
`trade secrets. Id. After the plaintiff filed suit, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs cause of
`
`action was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations because the plaintiff was on notice
`
`of the defendant's alleged misappropriation as of the plaintiff's first visit to the defendant's
`
`website. Id. at 5 91. The court disagreed, and found that the plaintiff's first reasonable opportunity
`
`to discover its cause of action was when it obtained the technical information about the defendant' s
`
`product. Id. at 594.
`
`The court finds that Accenture is distinguishable from the instant action because the
`
`plaintiff in that case was not aware of how the defendant had obtained the plaintiff's trade secrets,
`
`as the defendant had allegedly acquired the plaintiff's trade secrets through a third-party. Thus, in
`
`Accenture, the plaintiff's observation of high-level similarities between the parties' products was
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 94 Filed 03/27/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 6844
`
`not a "red flag" that would prompt a prudent person of ordinary intelligence to further investigate
`
`whether their trade secrets had been misappropriated. See Ocimum, 2019 WL 6726836 at * 10.
`
`By contrast, in the instant action, RVT had such a "red flag," because RVT was aware that ABB
`
`had hired away Dr. Boca-RVT's Chief Scientist and "one of the main architects" of RVT's
`
`product-and RVT was aware that Dr. Boca had failed to return confidential information to RVT
`
`prior to joining ABB. See D.I. 1 at~~ 17, 20, 127.
`
`Further, the Court also finds that Accenture is distinguishable for the separate reason that
`
`it is unclear whether the plaintiff in Accenture kn~w, at the time it review_ed the defendant's
`
`website, that the defendant was working with individuals from the third-party company that had
`
`access to the plaintiffs trade secrets. See 691 F. Supp. 2d 577, 592-593. Thus, it is not clear that
`
`the plaintiff in Accenture, when it first reviewed the defendant's website, had any reason to suspect
`
`the defendant of being able to obtain access to the plaintiffs trade secrets. See id. Conversely,
`
`RVT was aware that Dr. Boca had RVT's trade secrets in his possession, in violation of his
`
`confidentiality agreement with RVT, when Dr. Boca joined ABB. See D.I. 1 at~ 127. The Court
`
`finds those facts sufficient to distinguish this case from Accenture.
`
`In addition, the Court also finds that the instant action is distinguishable from Veritas
`
`Operating Corp. v. Microsoft Corp--a case that the court in Accenture found similar to the issues
`
`before that court In Veritas, the parties had a contract that permitted the defendant to use the
`
`plaintiffs trade secrets for some purposes but not others. See 2008 WL 474248, *10-12 (W.D.
`
`Wash. Feb. 4, 2008). Accordingly, to determine whether the defendant's product misappropriated
`
`the plaintiffs trade secrets (which included the plaintiffs source code), the parties agreed that it
`
`was necessary to make a line-by-line comparison of the parties' source code to determine how
`
`much of the plaintiffs code was in the defendant's product. Id. at 11. The Court finds Veritas
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 94 Filed 03/27/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 6845
`
`distinguishable from the instant action because RVT never provided ABB any legitimate access to
`
`its trade secrets. See D.I. 1. Thus, RVT did not need to conduct a line-by-line analysis of the
`
`source code for FlexVision and eVisionTech to be objectively aware that ABB may have
`
`misappropriated its trade secrets as ABB ' s mere possession of those trade secrets was a "red flag. "
`
`See Ocimum, 2019 WL 6726836 at *9-10 ("A person is on inquiry notice when they objectively
`
`are aware of facts sufficient to put a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence on inquiry which,
`
`if pursued, would lead to the discovery of facts constituting the basis of the cause of action.")
`
`(internal citations omitted).
`
`Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that RVT had a
`
`reasonable opportunity to discover its potential misappropriation claim once it was aware of Dr.
`
`Boca's actions-i.e., prior to reviewing ABB ' s technical information.
`
`ii.
`
`The Court Finds that ABB's Launch of Flex Vision Put RVT on Inquiry
`Notice.
`
`Even if the Court were to find that there exists a genuine dispute of material fact regarding
`
`whether RVT was on inquiry notice as of the date that Dr. Boca joined ABB, the Court would still
`
`grant ABB's partial motion to dismiss RVT's trade secret misappropriation claims because RVT
`
`was on inquiry notice of those claims as of the release date of ABB' s product.
`
`RVT contends that the release of Flex Vision was not sufficient to place RVT on inquiry
`
`notice because RVT did not have specific details of how FlexVision operates and, thus, could not
`
`determine if that product misappropriated its trade secrets. See D.I. 16. The Court agrees that a
`
`competitor's launch of a similar product is not, alone, sufficient to place a party on inquiry notice,
`
`because products that achieve similar results might do so using different methods. Here, however,
`
`RVT knew that (1) FlexVision was similar to eVisionFactory, and (2) Dr. Boca had left RVT to
`join ABB while potentially being in possession of confidential information. See D.I. 1 ,r,r 26, 29.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 94 Filed 03/27/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 6846
`
`The similarities of FlexVision and eVisionFactory, in light of Dr. Boca's prior conduct, was
`
`sufficient to place RVT on inquiry notice of its potential misappropriation claim against ABB. See
`
`Seatrax, Inc. v. Sonbeck Int '!, Inc. , 200 F.3d 358, 365-367 (5th Cir. 2000); Computer Associates
`
`Int '!, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. , 918 S.W.2d 453 , 457 (Tex. 1996) ("Suspicions should abound when a
`
`competitor markets a product similar to that previously developed by a former employer after one
`
`of the former employer's employees begins work for the competitor.").
`
`m. The Court Finds that RVT's Alleged Injury Was Not "Inherently
`Unknowable."
`
`The Court is also not convinced that RVT' s alleged injury was "inherently unknowable"
`
`prior to RVT's review of FlexVision's product manual. "Delaware courts consistently have
`
`concluded that inquiry notice may arise before a plaintiff has full or complete knowledge of the
`
`extent of its claims." Ocimum, 2019 WL 6726836 at *12. Accordingly, the statute oflimitations
`
`begins to run when the plaintiff reasonably should have been aware of its trade secret
`
`misappropriation claim-rather than when the "plaintiff can unassailably establish [ such a
`
`claim ]"-because, otherwise, the statute of limitations would be tolled in every case where "the
`
`plaintiff never discovers ' smoking gun' evidence of misappropriation. "' VLIW Tech. , LLC v.
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co., 2005 WL 1089027, at *15 (Del. Ch. May 4, 2005) (citing Chasteen v.
`
`UN/SIA JECS Corp., 216 F.3d 1212, 1218 (10th Cir. 2000)).
`
`As discussed above, under the circumstances ofthis case, Dr. Boca's conduct, and ABB ' s
`
`release of FlexVision, was sufficient to place RVT on inquiry notice that ABB may have
`
`misappropriated its trade secrets. See supra at § III.A(i-ii). Accordingly, RVT was not
`
`"blamelessly ignorant of [ABB ' s purported] wrongful act" because earlier discovery of RVT' s
`
`potential misappropriation claim was not a "practical impossibility." See In re Dean Witter P 'ship
`
`Litig., 1998 WL 442456, at *5 (Del. Ch. July 17, 1998), aff'd, 725 A.2d 441 (Del. 1999).
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 94 Filed 03/27/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 6847
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, this 27th day of March, 2024, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
`
`that:
`
`1.
`
`Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Trade Secret Misappropriation Claims
`
`for Failure to State a Claim, D.I. 11 , is GRANTED; and
`
`2.
`
`The parties shall meet and confer and, by no later than March 29, 2024, provide
`
`the Court with a joint status report identifying all of the parties' discovery
`
`disputes that remain given the rulings in this Opinion.
`
`14
`
`