ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin Hackett & Meeks
296 Neb. 818
| Neb. | 2017Background
- ACI Worldwide (plaintiff) sued Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, Inc. (BHMI) alleging trade-secret misappropriation related to middleware software (XPNET v. TMS); most non-misappropriation claims were dismissed pretrial.
- The district court limited ACI’s access to BHMI’s source code and manuals, requiring ACI to pursue non-trade-secret discovery first and to identify alleged trade secrets with particularity.
- First trial (2014): jury found for BHMI on ACI’s misappropriation claim (ACI lost). ACI later obtained email attachments and related materials in separate federal litigation.
- BHMI counterclaimed for breach of the NDA, tortious interference, and violations of Nebraska’s Junkin Act; second trial (2015): jury awarded BHMI ~$43.8 million on counterclaims; district court awarded BHMI attorney fees and costs.
- ACI moved to vacate both judgments and for new trials, arguing (inter alia) discovery denial (trade secrets), Noerr-Pennington immunity, insufficiency of evidence and damages, and erroneous exclusion of the newly obtained email attachments. The district court denied relief; Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of trade-secret discovery (source code/manuals) required vacatur of 2014 verdict | ACI: denial prevented proving misappropriation; warrants vacatur/new trial after ACI later obtained materials in federal case | BHMI: court properly required ACI to first exhaust non-trade-secret discovery and identify trade secrets with particularity to protect BHMI’s confidential info | Court: no abuse of discretion — trial court permissibly balanced ACI’s need vs. BHMI’s risk and required non-trade-secret discovery first |
| Whether Noerr-Pennington immunity barred BHMI’s Junkin Act and tortious-interference claims | ACI: filing the lawsuit is protected petitioning activity; immunity applies | BHMI: doctrine inapplicable (or ACI waived it by not pleading it as affirmative defense) | Court: ACI waived Noerr-Pennington by failing to plead it as an affirmative defense; denial of vacatur proper |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Junkin Act (antitrust injury/monopoly-related causation) | ACI: BHMI failed to prove antitrust injury (no market-wide price/quality/output harm) | BHMI: evidence showed TMS was lower-priced and multi-platform (higher quality); ACI’s suit prevented TMS marketing and sales (reduced output/increased price) | Court: sufficient competent evidence of antitrust injury; jury verdict not clearly wrong |
| Sufficiency of damages and expert testimony; attorney-fee award | ACI: BHMI’s damages evidence speculative; BHMI’s witness (Jack) unqualified; fee award unsupported (no invoices; improper multiplier) | BHMI: Jack had practical, business-specific experience to estimate lost profits; supporting contracts and testimony corroborated models; submitted an affidavit detailing hours/rates supporting fees | Court: Jack was qualified and damages evidence adequate for jury; district court reasonably awarded attorney fees and applied multiplier — no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastern R.R. Conference v. Noerr Motors, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) (Noerr‑Pennington doctrine protecting petitioning activity from antitrust liability)
- United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965) (extension of Noerr‑Pennington principles)
- Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993) (sham‑litigation exception to Noerr‑Pennington: objectively baseless and subjectively motivated by bad faith)
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992) (monopolization elements and defining market power inference)
- Koster v. P & P Enters., 248 Neb. 759 (1995) (Nebraska standard: jury verdict review; sufficient evidence standard)