Polytorx LLC v. Antoine Naaman
330893
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 4, 2017Background
- Polytorx (formed by Luke Pinkerton) developed steel fiber production technology while affiliated with the University of Michigan (U of M); U of M obtained patents on fibers but not on the manufacturing machinery.
- Polytorx alleged an agreement and NDAs with U of M preserved the production technology as a trade secret and granted Polytorx a license to manufacture and sell.
- Sambo (and associated individuals Ju and Ji) filed a patent for a machine to manufacture similar fibers; Polytorx later discovered its design book and a machine were missing from U of M and alleged copying.
- Polytorx sued multiple defendants (including Ju, Ji, and Sambo). On prior appeal this Court held U of M had no contractual duty to protect the production-technology trade secrets, foreclosing trade-secrets-based claims against the participating defendants.
- After remand, Ju, Ji, and Sambo sought dismissal; the trial court granted summary disposition dismissing all claims against them (with prejudice). The court declined fee awards; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law-of-the-case precludes relitigation of trade-secret issue as to Ju, Ji, Sambo | Polytorx: NDAs and license, supported by post-appeal emails, create factual disputes about trade-secret protection | Ju/Ji/Sambo: Prior appellate ruling controls; same facts/questions mandate dismissal | Court: Law-of-the-case applies—same facts and legal question; trade-secrets claims must be dismissed |
| Whether any non–trade-secret portions of tortious-interference and conspiracy claims survive | Polytorx: Alleged slander and reputational harm independent of trade secrets | Ju/Ji/Sambo: Allegations against them are limited to trade-secret misconduct | Court: No specific non–trade-secret factual allegations against Ju/Ji/Sambo; those counts dismissed in full |
| Whether claims are time-barred (statute of limitations) as applied to Ju/Ji/Sambo | Polytorx: statute-of-limitations defense does not preclude all claims | Ju/Ji/Sambo: Earlier panel’s ruling on limitations controls | Court: Declines to decide timing; dismissal affirmed on law-of-the-case/trade-secret grounds |
| Whether sanctions or UTSA fees were appropriate | Polytorx: pursued claims in good faith | Ju/Ji/Sambo: seek sanctions under MCR 7.216(C)(1) and UTSA fees | Court: Procedural defect fatal to MCR request; no abuse of discretion shown to award UTSA fees; deny relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Michigan, 300 Mich. App. 176 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (standards for law-of-the-case review)
- Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Mfg., 499 Mich. 491 (Mich. 2016) (appellate review standard for summary disposition)
- In re Wayne County Treasurer, 265 Mich. App. 285 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (application of law-of-the-case doctrine)
- Schumacher v. Dep’t of Natural Resources, 275 Mich. App. 121 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (law-of-the-case and related doctrines)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (Mich. 1999) (summary-disposition standard; mere possibility insufficient to survive)
- Ronnisch Constr. Group, Inc. v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC, 499 Mich. 544 (Mich. 2016) (standards for awarding fees/costs)