Bulletproofing A Billion-Dollar Verdict: In A Case Of High Intrigue, DuPont Tries To Defend Its Kevlar Trade Secrets Win On Appeal

by Orrick - Trade Secrets Group
Contact

Double agents. Bribery. Top-secret industrial facilities. Code words. An undercover FBI operation, complete with a wire. The DuPont v. Kolon Industries trade secrets trial had all the elements of a spy novel—and it ended with the legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb: a nearly $1 billion jury verdict:

Trade-Secret-Blog-Jun5-Image-1

Trade-Secret-Blog-Jun5-Image-1a

and a worldwide injunction:

Trade-Secret-Blog-Jun5-Image-2

Trade-Secret-Blog-Jun5-Image-3

These two parties slugged it out at trial, then stepped back into the ring for another battle royale at the Fourth Circuit. As the appeals court considers the arguments, we thought this was a good time to survey this mother of all trade secret cases, and see what’s at stake. Trade Secrets Watch reviewed the ponderous briefs and the trial and appellate arguments, and extracted the juiciest nuggets from this truly salacious saga.

DuPont alleged Kolon stole trade secrets concerning Kevlar, the fiber used in bulletproof armor. When the courtroom shootout ended after the September 2011 trial, the legal wreckage for Kolon was staggering:

  • eighteen months in the slammer for David Michael Mitchell, a Kolon consultant and former DuPont employee who pled guilty to stealing DuPont’s trade secret secrets and funneling them to Kolon;
  • indictments against Kolon executives for solicitation and misappropriation of DuPont’s trade secrets;
  • the mammoth $920 million judgment against Kolon for violating Virginia’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act following a seven-week civil jury trial;
  • the worldwide injunction prohibiting Kolon from making, using  or selling any para-aramid product for 20 years; and
  • a spoliation of evidence order and adverse inference jury instruction against Kolon.

After taking these shots in the trial court, Kolon came out firing in its appeal before the Fourth Circuit, promptly winning a temporary stay of the injunction (albeit by a 2-1 vote). In its brief on the merits filed in February 2013, Kolon argued:

  • The district court eviscerated Kolon’s ability to defend itself by a series of one-sided rulings, including granting all of DuPont’s motions in limine and denying all of Kolon’s;
  • The district court improperly excluded evidence showing that many of DuPont’s alleged trade secrets weren’t “secret” at all, but that DuPont disclosed them in open court during a prior patent suit against a competitor (Kolon says that many of them are even available in the National Archives);
  • The district court improperly allowed DuPont to present its 149 trade secrets en masse, and to continually change what trade secrets it was pursuing at trial;
  • DuPont didn’t prove Kolon actually used the secrets and instead tried to establish that Kolon’s mere possession was enough to establish use;
  • The district court improperly prejudiced the jury with its sweeping adverse inference instruction based on spoliation of evidence, ignoring that Kolon had issued a document preservation notice and was able to recover most of the documents;
  • The district court improperly prejudiced the jury with another adverse inference instruction, telling the jury it could draw adverse inferences against Kolon based on a third party witness’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment 350 times in his deposition (the FBI apparently sought to interview him the day before he was deposed);
  • DuPont’s damages theory — that Kolon avoided nearly $1 billion in development costs — was fundamentally flawed because it was based on DuPont’s historical costs over the entire 30 years of its R&D efforts, including costs to develop technology that Kolon never received or that is in the public domain and without proof that Kolon actually realized any cost savings;
  • Adding an injunction on top of a nearly $1 billion verdict represents an incredible windfall for DuPont; Kolon shouldn’t be made to pay nearly $1 billion for trade secrets and then be enjoined from using them.

For its part, DuPont’s appellate brief dismissed Kolon’s arguments as a scattershot approach, saying its “assert[ion of] twenty-five supposed reversible errors . . . means there are none”—and tried to ricochet Kolon’s shots by arguing:

  • DuPont more than adequately gave notice of its claims and identified its trade secrets through, among other things, a 60-page interrogatory response;
  • DuPont offered ample trial testimony establishing that its secrets weren’t generally known or readily ascertainable, saying its Virginia plant “resembles a top-secret government facility,” with “many guards and barb-wire fences”;
  • DuPont presented extensive evidence of Kolon’s alleged “massive theft” of DuPont trade secrets, including evidence that Kolon “bribed former DuPont employees to turn over Kevlar trade secrets; it surreptitiously copied documents and computer files from those ex-employees; it used hidden devices to record meetings; [and] it devised code-words to conceal its discussions,” and DuPont contrasted this evidence with Kolon’s decision not to call a single employee and to rely largely on expert testimony at trial;
  • Among the examples DuPont pointed to included an undercover FBI operation in which a DuPont employee posed as a potential consultant and wore a wire to a meeting where a Kolon employee allegedly didn’t want to say what he wanted in writing, out of a concern that it “will create evidence for us … that’s difficult”;
  • DuPont also cited evidence that Kolon employees invited Mitchell to a local restaurant, asked him to leave his laptop behind, and surreptitiously copied Kevlar secrets from his laptop while he ate lunch;
  • DuPont sought to support the district court’s adverse inference instructions by reference to its extensive fact-finding and 91-page opinion;
  • DuPont defended its mega-damages by citing testimony that it cost nearly $1 billion to develop the Kevlar technology, noting that Virgina law permits recovery of the cost savings Kolon would have incurred to develop the trade secrets lawfully on its own, and citing evidence that a plaintiff’s development costs can serve as a fair proxy for the defendant’s avoided costs; and
  • It defended the injunction by citing the court’s findings that Kolon allegedly incorporated the misappropriated trade secrets into virtually every stage of the manufacturing process for its competitive product.

DuPont also pointed to the government’s criminal case as rhetorical support for the validity of its case, although that case may be stalled after a district judge held that the Virginia U.S. Attorney’s Office failed to properly serve the foreign-based defendant (a procedural roadblock that seems to be more and more of a recurring issue in these types of international trade secret cases).

Only time will tell if DuPont successfully deflects Kolon’s appellate arguments. Many of Kolon’s arguments appear to turn on discretionary decisions by the trial court that may be difficult to overturn, but we won’t attempt to predict the outcome. We’ll be on the courthouse steps awaiting the court’s decision in the meantime.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Orrick - Trade Secrets Group | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Orrick - Trade Secrets Group
Contact
more
less

Orrick - Trade Secrets Group on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.