AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute between Lasen, Inc. and its subsidiary, Lasen ALPIS, LLC (collectively, "Lasen"), and their former employee, Boris Tadjikov. Lasen specializes in detecting methane gas leaks using LIDAR technology mounted on helicopters. Tadjikov, hired in 2004 as a research scientist and later becoming a minority shareholder, was involved in writing source code for Lasen's LIDAR devices. Upon termination in April 2009, Lasen sued Tadjikov for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, misappropriation of trade secrets, and sought injunctive relief, alleging Tadjikov wrongfully retained intellectual property and trade secrets (paras 1, 4-5, 8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs (Lasen): Argued that Tadjikov breached his employment agreement and fiduciary duty by retaining Lasen's intellectual property and trade secrets, including software source codes. Lasen claimed Tadjikov took proprietary information upon termination and sought damages and injunctive relief to prevent Tadjikov from using or disclosing Lasen's confidential information (paras 1, 8-10).
• Defendant (Tadjikov): Raised legal challenges to the breach of fiduciary duty and contract claims, disputed the district court’s findings of fact, and contested the award of damages and the grant of permanent injunctive relief. Tadjikov also argued against Lasen's entitlement to attorney’s fees and claimed he had provided Lasen with the source code upon his departure (paras 2, 11-12).

Legal Issues

• Whether Tadjikov breached his employment agreement and fiduciary duty by retaining Lasen's intellectual property and trade secrets.
• Whether the district court erred in awarding damages and permanent injunctive relief to Lasen.
• Whether Lasen is entitled to attorney’s fees (paras 2, 3, 13).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s entry of a permanent injunction against Tadjikov to the extent that it prevents him from disseminating Lasen’s confidential information beyond a five-year period that expired in April 2014.
• The Court affirmed the rest of the permanent injunction and the remainder of the judgment due to Tadjikov’s failure to establish that he preserved his claims for appeal (para 3).

Reasons

• The Court found that Tadjikov failed to demonstrate the preservation of the majority of his claims for appellate review, thus declining to review them. The Court agreed with Tadjikov that the permanent injunction improperly extended his obligation not to disclose Lasen’s trade secrets beyond the agreed five-year period post-termination. However, the Court affirmed the district court's decision to require Tadjikov to return any Lasen materials in his possession, as the source code was Lasen's property. The Court declined to address Tadjikov’s argument that the injunction was improper because Lasen had an adequate remedy at law due to failure to demonstrate preservation of this claim. Lasen's request for appellate attorney’s fees was denied due to lack of legal basis provided (paras 14-19, 20-33).