HDNET, LLC v. North American Boxing Council
972 N.E.2d 920
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- HDNet and NABC discussed a unique branded MMA broadcast concept in 2007; no contract formed but NABC treated the idea as protectable.
- NABC filed suit in 2008 alleging idea misappropriation, unfair competition, breach-related claims, misappropriation of trade secrets, and related remedies.
- The trial court, in 2011, granted partial summary judgment holding IUTSA did not preempt NABC’s idea misappropriation and conversion claims.
- HD appealed to seek interlocutory review; the parties focused on IUTSA preemption, particularly over idea misappropriation and civil conversion.
- Indiana appellate court reverses and remands, holding the trial court erred in its preemption ruling and that IUTSA preemption applies to these claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IUTSA preempts idea misappropriation claims | NABC argues IUTSA preemption applies only to statutory trade secrets and not to its idea misappropriation claim. | HD contends IUTSA preemption is broad but limited to statutory trade secrets, not ideas outside the statute. | Preemption applies; trial court erred in treating idea misappropriation as non-preempted. |
| Whether IUTSA preempts the civil conversion claim | NABC claims civil conversion is derivative of criminal law and not preempted. | HD argues conversion falls outside the criminal-law exception and should be preempted under IUTSA. | Conversion is not saved by criminal-law exception; preemption applies and summary judgment was improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- AGS Capital Corp. v. Prod. Action Int’l, LLC, 884 N.E.2d 294 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (civil RICO preemption not applicable where derivative of criminal law)
- Infinity Prod., Inc. v. Quandt, 810 N.E.2d 1028 (Ind. 2004) (UTSA preemption scope and remedies analyzed)
- BlueEarth Biofuels, LLC v. Hawaiian Elec. Co., 235 P.3d 310 (Haw. 2010) (majority view: UTSA preemption displaces non-contractual misappropriation claims)
- Amoco Prod. Co. v. Laird, 622 N.E.2d 912 (Ind. 1993) (Indiana adoption of UTSA and uniform application)