Dr. Ruthie Harper and PLLG, LLC v. Wellbeing Genomics Pty Ltd.
03-17-00035-CV
| Tex. App. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- Wellbeing Genomics developed a DNA-based skin test (Trade Secret No. 1): a small panel of SNPs (15 variants across 12 genes) and supporting data cards built over ~3 years.
- Wellbeing provided confidential gene data cards (with scientific references that included rs numbers) to Dr. Ruthie Harper and PLLG under a distributor relationship.
- Harper/PLLG developed their own SNP panel quickly (≈3 months) with help from Dr. Linda DiBella; PLLG’s initial panel submitted to a lab included 8 of Wellbeing’s 15 SNPs.
- Wellbeing’s expert (Dr. Metzker) testified Harper/PLLG accessed Wellbeing’s data cards, used those references/rs numbers, and that Harper’s patent filings and PLLG’s panel were substantially derived from Trade Secret No. 1.
- The jury found Trade Secret No. 1 protectable and that Harper and PLLG misappropriated it; PLLG was also found to have breached a confidentiality provision and Wellbeing elected contract remedies against PLLG.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Harper/PLLG have access to Trade Secret No. 1? | Wellbeing: provided confidential data cards citing references with rs numbers; circumstantial evidence (communications, rapid development, overlap of SNPs) shows access. | Harper/PLLG: no evidence they ever received the Trade Secret or Slide 17; deny access. | Jury had sufficient circumstantial evidence of access (expert testimony and documentary links accepted). |
| Did Harper/PLLG use or disclose Trade Secret No. 1? | Wellbeing: Harper’s patent filings incorporated Wellbeing data; PLLG’s panel contained many of the same SNPs; expert opined defendants relied on Wellbeing’s secret to develop products. | Harper/PLLG: their products differ; independent development; publication/patent content challenged. | Court instructed and applied "use" as commercial use/substantial derivation; evidence was sufficient to support jury finding of use/disclosure. |
| Standard for proving access/use of trade secrets under Texas law | Wellbeing: circumstantial evidence, expert opinion, and project collaboration suffice; need not show direct delivery of all elements in one document. | Defendants: contend higher or direct-evidence standard should apply. | Cites precedent allowing circumstantial proof, expert inference, and that product need not be identical—use can be reliance to accelerate R&D. |
| Sufficiency challenge to jury verdict (no-evidence / insufficient-evidence) | Wellbeing: record contains more than scintilla (documents, emails, expert testimony) such that reasonable jurors could find misappropriation. | Defendants: urged reversal for lack of evidence or that verdict is against overwhelming weight. | Appellee urges affirmance: evidence was enough; credibility/weight for jury; no reversible insufficiency shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P., 716 F.3d 867 (5th Cir. 2013) (circumstantial evidence and expert testimony can support access and use findings)
- GlobeRanger Corp. v. Software AG United States of America, Inc., 836 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2016) (use includes relying on trade secrets to assist or accelerate development even if final product differs)
- Bishop v. Miller, 412 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (misappropriation can be shown when a defendant’s plan incorporates substantial components of a plaintiff’s plan)
- SW Energy Production Co. v. Berry-Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. 2016) (definition of “use” as commercial use to profit and to assist or accelerate R&D)
- Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. Hickory Springs Mfg. Co., 285 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (hiring a former employee with knowledge of trade secrets supports inference of access)
- Electro-Miniatures Corp. v. Wendon Co., Inc., 771 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1985) (jury may infer access from circumstantial evidence even if precise transmission is unclear)
- Sokol Crystal Prods. v. DSC Comm’ns Corp., 15 F.3d 1427 (7th Cir. 1994) (receipt of product may suffice to show access)
- Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l v. Holden Found. Seeds, 35 F.3d 1226 (8th Cir. 1994) (direct evidence of industrial espionage rarely available; circumstantial proof can be adequate)