Qorvo, Inc. v. Akoustis Technologies, Inc.
1:21-cv-01417
| D. Del. | Oct 15, 2024Background
- Qorvo, Inc. sued Akoustis Technologies, Inc. and Akoustis, Inc. in the District of Delaware for trade secret misappropriation under federal and North Carolina law, patent infringement, and violation of North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA).
- On May 17, 2024, a jury found Akoustis liable for trade secret misappropriation (under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act (NCTSPA)), and patent infringement, awarding Qorvo significant compensatory and punitive damages.
- The jury did not find Akoustis liable under the UDTPA.
- Qorvo moved to alter or amend the judgment to reflect a UDTPA violation and award treble damages, arguing the jury's findings on trade secrets required a UDTPA violation as a matter of law.
- The matter was briefed and argued post-trial, with Qorvo relying on North Carolina case law for support.
- The court denied Qorvo’s motion, leaving the jury’s finding of no liability under the UDTPA undisturbed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trade secret misappropriation necessarily creates UDTPA liability | NCTSPA/DTSA violation is per se UDTPA violation | No per se rule; elements of UDTPA not automatically met | No per se UDTPA violation from misappropriation |
| Whether the verdict should be amended to reflect a UDTPA violation | Jury erred; court should amend judgment based on other findings | No legal error, no inconsistency, elements not established | No basis to amend judgment |
| Whether damages for trade secret claims mandate UDTPA damages | Damages show injury and causation for UDTPA | Damages theory does not prove injury or causation for UDTPA | Damages alone insufficient for UDTPA liability |
| Whether court must award treble damages under N.C. Stat. § 75-1 | Treble damages automatic if UDTPA violation is found | No UDTPA liability so treble damages inapplicable | No treble damages awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. N.H. Dep't of Emp't Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (1982) (Rule 59(e) should only address reconsideration of matters properly encompassed by a decision on the merits)
- N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reins. Co., 52 F.3d 1194 (3d Cir. 1995) (lays out grounds for altering or amending judgment under Rule 59(e))
- Walker v. Sloan, 137 N.C. App. 387 (2000) (states elements required for a UDTPA claim)
- Oakwood Lab’ys v. Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892 (3d Cir. 2021) (describes DTSA elements and relationship to state law claims)
- Norman v. Elkin, 849 F. Supp. 2d 418 (D. Del. 2012) (dissatisfaction with jury result does not equal manifest injustice)