ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin Hackett & Meeks
296 Neb. 818
| Neb. | 2017Background
- ACI Worldwide sued Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, Inc. (BHMI) alleging misappropriation of trade secrets related to payment middleware; BHMI counterclaimed for breach of an NDA, tortious interference, and violation of Nebraska’s Junkin Act.
- The district court limited ACI’s access to BHMI’s source code and manuals, requiring ACI to pursue non‑trade‑secret discovery first; ACI pursued some depositions and a parallel federal action against MasterCard.
- In a 2014 trial the jury rejected ACI’s misappropriation claims.
- After obtaining email attachments in federal discovery, ACI sought to reopen discovery, vacate the 2014 judgment, and use the new materials; the court denied those posttrial motions.
- In a 2015 trial the jury found for BHMI on its counterclaims (breach of the NDA and Junkin Act) and awarded $43.8 million; the court later awarded BHMI ~$2.73 million in attorney fees.
- ACI appealed, arguing (inter alia) discovery abuses, that Noerr‑Pennington immunity precluded BHMI’s claims, insufficiency of BHMI’s evidence/damages, and error in the fees award; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ACI) | Defendant's Argument (BHMI) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of trade‑secret discovery required vacatur of the 2014 verdict | Denial of source‑code/manuals prevented ACI from proving misappropriation; new federal attachments proved prejudice | Court properly required ACI to pursue non‑trade‑secret discovery first; ACI had not diligently done so | No abuse of discretion; denial of trade‑secret production was justified and did not mandate vacatur |
| Whether Noerr‑Pennington immunity barred BHMI’s antitrust and tort claims | Filing litigation is protected by Noerr‑Pennington; ACI raised immunity late | Noerr‑Pennington is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded; ACI waived it by failing to timely plead | ACI waived Noerr‑Pennington; court did not err in denying vacatur on that basis |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Junkin Act (antitrust injury) and breach of NDA | Insufficient proof of antitrust injury and improper finding that ACI used BHMI confidential info; damages speculative | Evidence showed TMS would have increased competition, lower price and broader platform support; NDA barred use of BHMI confidential info in litigation; BHMI presented lost‑profit evidence | Jury verdict supported by competent evidence; antitrust injury and breach findings upheld |
| Whether attorney‑fee award was an abuse of discretion | BHMI failed to introduce billing invoices; multiplier unjustified | BHMI submitted detailed affidavit of hours/rates and case complexity justified enhancement | Fee award sustained; affidavit sufficed and district court’s multiplier was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastern R.R. Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) (establishes petitioning immunity from antitrust liability)
- United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965) (extends Noerr immunity principles)
- Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 508 U.S. 49 (1993) (defines sham‑litigation exception to Noerr‑Pennington)
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., 504 U.S. 451 (1992) (monopolization standards relevant to market power)
- Jacobs v. Tempur‑Pedic Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2010) (examples of anticompetitive effects constituting antitrust injury)