ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin Hackett & Meeks
296 Neb. 818
| Neb. | 2017Background
- ACI Worldwide sued BHMI in 2012 alleging BHMI misappropriated ACI’s middleware trade secrets (XPNET vs. BHMI’s TMS); most of ACI’s other claims were dismissed pretrial.
- BHMI counterclaimed for breach of a nondisclosure agreement (NDA), tortious interference, and violations of Nebraska’s Junkin Act (state antitrust statute); discovery disputes centered on BHMI source code and MasterCard-related documents.
- The district court limited trade-secret discovery, requiring ACI to pursue non-trade-secret discovery first; ACI took few depositions and did not exhaust non-trade-secret avenues before trial.
- First trial (2014): jury found against ACI on its misappropriation claim. After ACI later obtained email attachments in separate federal litigation, ACI moved to vacate and reopen discovery.
- Second trial (2015): jury found for BHMI on counterclaims (NDA breach and Junkin Act) and awarded approximately $43.8 million; district court awarded BHMI ~$2.73 million in attorney fees and denied ACI’s posttrial motions to vacate or grant a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by denying trade-secret discovery and refusing to vacate 2014 judgment | ACI: denial of source code/manuals deprived it of proof and warranted vacatur/new trial after it later obtained attachments | BHMI: ACI failed to pursue non-trade-secret discovery; protective order and sequencing were proper to protect BHMI trade secrets | Court: No abuse of discretion; sequencing discovery and requiring particularized non-trade-secret showing was justified given ACI’s limited non-trade-secret discovery |
| Whether Noerr-Pennington immunity barred BHMI’s Junkin Act and tort claims | ACI: petitioning immunity precludes BHMI’s antitrust/tort claims | BHMI: Noerr-Pennington is an affirmative defense which ACI waived by not pleading it timely | Court: ACI waived Noerr-Pennington by failing to plead it as an affirmative defense; denied vacatur on that ground |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Junkin Act and NDA breach | ACI: BHMI failed to prove antitrust injury, monopoly effects, contract breach, or reliable damages | BHMI: presented evidence TMS’ lower price, multi-platform capability, lost FNBO contract, testimony on market share, and lost-profits calculations | Court: Jury verdict upheld—competent evidence supported antitrust injury, NDA breach, and damages; no clear error |
| Whether attorney-fee award was excessive or inadequately supported | ACI: BHMI failed to introduce invoices and multiplier was unjustified | BHMI: submitted affidavit summarizing hours/rates; case complexity and result support fees and multiplier | Court: Affidavit sufficed; district court reasonably applied fee factors and multiplier; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastern R.R. Conf. v. Noerr Motors, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) (establishes petitioning immunity doctrine)
- Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965) (extends Noerr-Pennington 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 elements and market power principles)
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, 429 U.S. 477 (1977) (antitrust standing and antitrust injury requirements)
- In re Remington Arms Co., 952 F.2d 1029 (8th Cir. 1991) (trade-secret discovery sequencing and need-for-particularity approach)
- Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2010) (examples of actual anticompetitive effects: reduced output, increased prices, deterioration in quality)