984 F. Supp. 2d 205
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- TRA Global, Inc. and Cavendish Square Holding B.V. sue TRA for patent infringement and related non-patent claims; WPP Companies move for summary judgment on non-infringement, trade secrets, and non-patent damages, and mootness of invalidity.
- Patents asserted: '940 (advertising ROI analysis), '993 (purchase behavior targeting), and '301 (advertising ROI/true target index) with Blind matching and data aggregation features.
- Court previously construed key claim terms (household data, cleansing/editing algorithms, and data matching) and adopted stipulated constructions.
- Plaintiffs’ non-patent damages theory centers on a “frozen market” caused by WPP’s actions; defendants contend investors’ concerns and post-money valuations negate causation.
- Court grants partial summary judgment for defendants: no patent infringement (as to the CPG and Auto products on key limitations), no misappropriation of trade secrets, and exclusion of the frozen-market damages theory; invalidity is moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TRA’s trade secrets claim survives summary judgment | TRA contends its trade secrets were misappropriated and used. | WPP argues trade secrets are not sufficiently defined or shown to be used. | Dismissed; trade secrets claim insufficiently identified and not shown to be used. |
| Whether the CPG products infringe the purchase data limitation of the patents | TRA argues purchase data is encompassed by using survey data over a period. | WPP contends CPG lacks data describing a purchase at a given time. | Non-infringement; CPG products do not obtain data describing a purchase at a given time. |
| Whether the Auto products infringe the double-blind matching and thesaurus limitations | TRA asserts double-blind matching and a thesaurus are used. | WPP maintains no true double-blind matching or thesaurus use; Experian contract is unsigned, etc. | Non-infringement; court finds lack of proof of double-blind matching and no credible thesaurus use. |
| Whether the claims infringe under the doctrine of equivalents | TRA relies on expert to show equivalence for CPG products. | WPP argues lack of timely disclosure and no substantial equivalence. | Dismissed; not supported by timely or sufficient evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 707 F.3d 1330 (Fed.Cir. 2013) (provides standard for patentee’s burden in infringement and related issues)
- ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312 (Fed.Cir. 2012) (standard for evaluating summary judgment in patent cases)
- Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Regional Transp. Authority, 702 F.3d 685 (2d Cir. 2012) (local circuit precedent on summary judgment standards)
- Finn v. N.Y. State Office of Mental Health-Rockland Psychiatric Ctr., 489 F.App’x 513 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standards and evidentiary considerations)