Raytheon Co. v. Indigo Systems Corp.
688 F.3d 1311
Fed. Cir.2012Background
- Raytheon sued Indigo for trade secret misappropriation in ED Texas; district court granted summary judgment as time-barred.
- Indigo is FLIR’s subsidiary; former Raytheon employees, including Woolaway, founded Indigo.
- 1997 agreements restricted Indigo’s hiring of Raytheon personnel and protected Raytheon IP; Raytheon released claims in exchange.
- Raytheon later discovered potential misappropriation via a 2004 Indigo camera; court treated timing under discovery rule and fraudulent concealment.
- Key factual dispute: whether Raytheon could have discovered misappropriation before March 2, 2004, and whether reliance on Indigo assurances affected timeliness.
- Court of appeals reversed the district court’s summary judgment, vacated fee ruling, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable tolling law for limitations | Raytheon argues California law governs discovery and tolling issues. | Indigo argues Texas law should apply; both states yield similar tolling results. | No meaningful difference; discovery rule tolling analyzed under either regime. |
| Whether the district court erred by resolving a factual dispute about discovery at summary judgment | Raytheon contends genuine facts exist about when discovery occurred and reliance on assurances should be resolved by a jury. | Indigo asserts facts show Raytheon should have discovered earlier, negating the discovery rule. | District court erred in resolving disputed facts about discovery timing; a jury must decide. |
| Whether Raytheon should have discovered the misappropriation before March 2004 based on a preexisting suspicion | Raytheon asserts lack of preexisting suspicion and that prior competitive analyses do not prove discovery. | Indigo argues continued suspicion from 2000, plus assurances, meant earlier discovery was warranted. | Factual questions remain for trial; evidence could support Raytheon’s later discovery. |
| Whether fraudulent concealment tolling applies and supports timely filing | Raytheon relies on concealment tolling to extend accrual. | Indigo contends concealment facts are insufficient or improperly proven. | Fraudulent concealment and discovery rule hinge on factual disputes; issues to be resolved later. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seatrax, Inc. v. Sonbeck International, Inc., 200 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2000) (contextualizes discovery rule and assurances in tolling)
- Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. 1998) (discovery and diligence questions typically fact questions)
- Pirtle v. Kahn, 177 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. App. 2005) (whether plaintiff should have discovered is a fact question)
- Ovando v. County of Los Angeles, 159 Cal. App. 4th 42 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (discovery-related tolling questions generally fact-driven)
- Stonecipher’s Estate v. Butts’ Estate, 591 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. 1979) (fraud vitiates and tolling hinges on discovery of fraud)
- Mills v. Mills, 305 P.2d 61 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1956) (fraudulent concealment tolling and discovery questions are fact-driven)