Nifty Technologies, Inc. v. Mango Technologies, Inc.
3:24-cv-00194
| S.D. Cal. | Jul 1, 2025Background
- Nifty Technologies and ClickUp (Mango Technologies) are competitors in the project management software industry.
- In 2021, Nifty and ClickUp entered into merger discussions, executing both an NDA and a Letter of Intent to enable due diligence, during which Nifty disclosed confidential technical and customer information to ClickUp.
- Merger negotiations failed; Nifty alleges that ClickUp subsequently misused Nifty’s trade secrets to improve its own products and made false statements in public product reviews, harming Nifty’s business.
- Nifty sued ClickUp for misappropriation of trade secrets under federal and state law, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and breach of contract. A prior dismissal left only the contract claim standing; Nifty then filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), renewing its trade secret and UCL claims.
- ClickUp moved to dismiss all claims except for breach of contract; the present order rules on that motion under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Trade Secret Particularity | Identified 44 specific trade secrets (in categories) with detailed Exhibit B. | Many alleged secrets too vague/generic or indistinct from public info. | Some (but not all) are sufficiently pled; several dismissed. |
| Secrecy/Not Public Knowledge | Alleged code, structure, and data were not public and kept confidential. | Nifty failed to show differences from industry knowledge, risk of public disclosure | Nifty alleged enough at pleadings stage; this is fact-based. |
| Misappropriation of Customer Data Secrets | ClickUp used confidential customer data to improve its service and mimic pricing. | No plausible connection between shared data and alleged misappropriation or copying. | Misappropriation not plausibly alleged as to data secrets. |
| UCL Competitor Standing and Reliance | Competitor can rely on consumer deception to establish standing, not just own. | UCL "actual reliance" standard requires plaintiff’s own reliance, not consumer’s. | Nifty must allege its own reliance; UCL claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standards—"plausibility" requirement)
- InteliClear, LLC v. ETC Glob. Holdings, Inc., 978 F.3d 653 (trade secret specificity at the pleadings stage)
- Imax Corp. v. Cinema Techs., Inc., 152 F.3d 1161 (particularity required for identifying trade secrets)
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (publicly accessible info cannot be a trade secret)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct., 246 P.3d 877 (UCL standing and actual reliance requirement)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 207 P.3d 20 (UCL actual reliance, especially in misrepresentation claims)
- MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Comput., Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (customer database misuse as trade secret misappropriation)