993 F. Supp. 2d 100
D. Conn.2014Background
- Amphenol alleged Paul breached the Intellectual Property Agreement (IPA) and Stockholder’s Agreements restricting non-compete, non-disclosure, and post-employment activities.
- Paul, employed 1996–March 9, 2012 as Business Unit Director, had access to confidential information under the IPA.
- Paul resigned to join TE Connectivity in March 2012; Amphenol claims ongoing restrictions prevented competition and disclosure.
- Paul allegedly downloaded Amphenol files (including personal data) on Feb 26, 2013, despite returning devices and asserting no misuse.
- Amphenol contends TE competed with Amphenol post-acquisition of Deutsch; Amphenol sought damages, equitable relief, and injunctive relief.
- No expert was designated for damages; Amphenol relied on a non-expert witness for damages evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract elements | Amphenol: IPA/Stockholder’s Agreements protect confidential info and bar competition; damages or nominal relief allowed | Paul: no breach or calculable damages; actions not breach | Partial breach theory rejected; no damages shown; contract claim fails |
| CFAA claim viability | Amphenol: CFAA covers misuse of authorized access; misappropriation can violate CFAA | Paul: authorized access; no exceeding or unauthorized use | CFAA not violated; no exceedance or unauthorized access proven |
| Misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition | Amphenol: Paul used trade secret knowledge in TE; damages or nominal damages warranted | Paul: returned materials; no misappropriation or damages proven | Misappropriation and unfair competition claims fail; not proven damages or use of trade secrets |
| Breach of fiduciary duties | Paul breached duty by meeting competitor, taking documents, and misrepresenting duties | No breach of fiduciary duty; discussions with TE insufficient | No breach of fiduciary duty; damages not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (interpretation of ‘without authorization’ and ‘exceeds authorized access’ under CFAA)
- Integrated Cash Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Digital Transactions, Inc., 920 F.2d 171 (2d Cir. 1990) (definition of misappropriation scope for trade secrets)
- ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc., 9 N.Y.3d 467 (N.Y. 2007) (unfair competition theories—misappropriation and palming off)
- Roy Exp. Co. v. Columbia Broad. System, Inc., 672 F.2d 1095 (2d Cir. 1982) (unfair competition doctrine—misappropriation and bad faith element)
- Whitney v. Citibank, N.A., 782 F.2d 1106 (2d Cir. 1986) (elements of inducing or participating in breach of fiduciary duties)
- S & K Sales Co. v. Nike, Inc., 816 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1987) (fiduciary-duty breach elements and damages requirement)