Raytheon Company v. Indigo Systems Corporation
895 F.3d 1333
Fed. Cir.2018Background
- Raytheon sued Indigo (and FLIR) for patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation related to infrared camera detector packaging and processing; patent claims were later settled and dismissed.
- Case remanded after this Court reversed a 2009 summary judgment ruling that had held trade-secret claims time-barred; Raytheon proceeded under California law (CUTSA) at trial.
- At a three-week jury trial Raytheon asserted 31 alleged trade secrets; the jury found Indigo liable on none of them and returned verdicts for Indigo on all 31 claims.
- Raytheon renewed JMOL/new-trial motions arguing two trade secrets (Trade Secret 14: sequential vacuum bake recipes; Trade Secret 30: in situ solder-seal batch process) were conclusively misappropriated; the district court denied relief.
- Indigo sought attorney fees under the Texas Theft Liability Act (TTLA) after Raytheon dismissed the Texas-law claim without prejudice; the district court denied fees and this ruling was appealed by Indigo.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court: the evidence supported the jury’s findings of independent development/absence of acquisition for both Trade Secrets 14 and 30, and the TTLA fee award was not required on these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Raytheon) | Defendant's Argument (Indigo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Raytheon proved misappropriation of Trade Secret 14 (sequential vacuum bake "recipes") | Sharpe (ex‑Raytheon) disclosed Raytheon’s sequential bake recipes and Indigo used them; JMOL required. | Indigo independently developed different, more specific recipes; sequential baking concept was public; Sharpe denied taking recipes. | Denied JMOL; substantial evidence supported jury finding of no misappropriation. |
| Whether Raytheon proved misappropriation of Trade Secret 30 (in situ solder‑seal batch process) | Magoun (ex‑Raytheon) supplied Raytheon’s in situ recipe to Indigo, which used it. | Indigo independently developed its in situ process (Schweikert lead inventor); no evidence Magoun disclosed Raytheon’s recipe. | Denied JMOL; jury reasonably found no acquisition/use/disclosure. |
| Whether a new trial was required based on alleged insufficiency of evidence | JMOL failure means a new trial should be granted as alternative relief. | The verdict was supported by evidence; no clear absence of evidence. | Denied new trial; Fifth Circuit standard requires clear absence of supporting evidence and none exists. |
| Whether Indigo is entitled to mandatory attorney fees under TTLA after Raytheon dismissed Texas claim | Indigo: dismissal of TTLA claim (to pursue CUTSA) made Indigo a "prevailing party" and fees are mandatory. | Raytheon: dismissal was a procedural choice to proceed under California law, not an attempt to avoid an adverse merits ruling; no merits adjudication for TTLA. | Fees denied; district court did not abuse discretion—dismissal without prejudice did not show avoidance of adverse merits ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (clarifying pleading standards)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishing Twombly/Iqbal pleading framework)
- Raytheon Co. v. Indigo Sys. Corp., 688 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (appellate remand reversing summary judgment and addressing timeliness/pleading issues)
- The- rasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (standard for JMOL review referenced)
- Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp., 587 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (trade-secret requiring secrecy from public domain)
- Janvey v. Romero, 817 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 2016) (Fifth Circuit de novo review standard for JMOL)