Cynosure, LLC v. Reveal Lasers LLC
793 F.Supp.3d 315
D. Mass.2025Background
- Cynosure, a Massachusetts-based medical aesthetics company, lost 28 sales and marketing employees in May–June 2022 after senior sales leaders Robert Daley and Chris Chambers secretly recruited them to launch Reveal (Reveal Ltd. and U.S. subsidiary Reveal LLC).
- Daley and Chambers had signed Reveal employment agreements before conducting clandestine "QBR" meetings while still employed at Cynosure; many recruited employees signed Reveal offer letters (often undated) and some copied Cynosure files before resigning.
- Cynosure sued for, among other claims, trade-secret misappropriation, tortious interference, breaches of restrictive covenants and fiduciary duty, and violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A; a jury found Defendants liable on multiple common-law claims and found trade-secret misappropriation by Daley and the Reveal entities (but no proven harm from that misappropriation).
- The jury awarded $15 million compensatory damages (Reveal entities $15M; Daley and Chambers each $5M subsets) and $225,000 punitive damages against Daley on a contract claim.
- The court resolved the remaining Chapter 93A claim: it held the raid of Cynosure’s sales force violated Chapter 93A, doubled the compensatory award (to $30M total; $10M each subset for Daley and Chambers), awarded attorneys’ fees for the sales-force claim, awarded fees tied to trade-secret injunctive relief (though no 93A damages for the trade-secret misappropriation), and granted prejudgment interest at 12% on compensatory damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the raid of Cynosure’s sales force constituted an unfair or deceptive practice under Ch. 93A | Defendants orchestrated a secret, calculated raid (tortious interference and breach/aid of fiduciary duties) that caused lost profits | Recruitment is routine in the industry; any employee-based dispute is intra-enterprise and outside §11 | Court adopted the jury verdict: the raid was an egregious, unfair practice under §11 and caused monetary loss; liability sustained |
| Whether the intra-enterprise doctrine bars Cynosure’s §11 claim against Daley/Chambers and Reveal | Claim is valid because Reveal is a third party and Daley/Chambers acted as agents of a competitor and conducted marketplace transactions | §11 does not apply to employer–employee internal disputes; employees can’t be sued under §11 for employment-related breaches | Doctrine does not bar claim: Reveal liable; Daley and Chambers liable because conduct was not purely internal and continued as marketplace conduct post-employment |
| Whether misappropriation of trade secrets supports a §11 recovery | Daley and Reveal misappropriated confidential materials and would have used them in the market; injunctive relief prevented actual loss | Defendants: misappropriation caused no provable monetary harm; Chambers disputed trade-secret liability | Jury found misappropriation by Daley/Reveal but no provable harm; court denies §11 damages for trade-secret misappropriation but awards fees/costs tied to obtaining TRO/PI protecting the trade secrets; Chambers not liable on trade-secret §11 theory |
| Whether the Chapter 93A violation occurred ‘‘primarily and substantially within Massachusetts’’ | Center of gravity is MA: Cynosure HQ in MA, Daley a MA resident/employee, planning and misappropriation tied to MA | Scheme was national; most recruiting and employees were outside MA, so §11 geographic test fails | Center-of-gravity satisfied: injury/loss in MA, planning and key acts linked to MA; §11 applies |
| Remedy: multiple damages, fees, prejudgment interest | Seek compensatory, treble damages for willful conduct, attorneys’ fees (including for trade-secret injunctive work), and 12% prejudgment interest from filing | Defendants argue multiple damages punitive/duplicative of jury’s punitive award and contest fees tied to trade-secret theory | Court finds willful/knowing conduct as to the raid and awards double (not treble) damages ($30M total), reasonable attorneys’ fees for the sales-force §11 claim, fees for securing TRO/PI re: trade secrets, and 12% prejudgment interest on compensatory amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Anoush Cab, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 8 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2021) (Chapter 93A standard and statutory scope)
- Schuster v. Wynn Ma, LLC, 118 F.4th 30 (1st Cir. 2024) (three-factor unfairness test under Chapter 93A)
- Governo L. Firm LLC v. Bergeron, 166 N.E.3d 416 (Mass. 2021) (intra-enterprise doctrine and when employee conduct becomes a marketplace transaction)
- Augat, Inc. v. Aegis, Inc., 565 N.E.2d 415 (Mass. 1991) (employee solicitation of managerial staff can support Ch. 93A liability)
- Mass. Eye & Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc., 412 F.3d 215 (1st Cir. 2005) (trade-secret misappropriation can constitute a Chapter 93A violation)
- Informix, Inc. v. Rennell, 668 N.E.2d 1351 (Mass. 1996) (limits on using §11 for ordinary employment-contract breaches)
- Sonoran Scanners, Inc. v. PerkinElmer, Inc., 585 F.3d 535 (1st Cir. 2009) (center-of-gravity test for §11 geographic requirement)
- Baker v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 771 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2014) (trial court may adopt or reject jury findings when deciding a §11 claim)
- KPM Analytics N. Am. Corp. v. Blue Sun Sci., LLC, 729 F. Supp. 3d 84 (D. Mass. 2024) (applying Ch. 93A principles to tortious interference/aiding-and-abetting theories)