Wisk Aero LLC v. Archer Aviation Inc.
3:21-cv-02450
N.D. Cal.Aug 24, 2021Background
- Wisk Aero (plaintiff) and Archer Aviation (defendant) compete in the eVTOL (air-taxi) industry; Wisk alleges Archer misappropriated its trade secrets while developing Archer’s "Maker" aircraft.
- Archer engaged FlightHouse (an external design firm) and hired a wave of former Wisk engineers; FlightHouse and Archer considered 12-rotor designs, and Archer ultimately selected a 12-tilt-6 configuration.
- Wisk filed a January 31, 2020 provisional patent application for a design visually similar to Archer’s Maker; Wisk contends Archer disclosed its design to Wisk employees during recruiting meetings and used Wisk confidential material.
- A former Wisk engineer, Jing Xue, downloaded ~4,977 files from Wisk systems in late December 2019; forensics showed unusual downloads and a USB device was connected around that time; Xue asserted the Fifth Amendment in deposition on some topics.
- Wisk sued (DTSA and CUTSA claims) and sought a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery; the court conducted early discovery, heard the PI motion, then denied the PI and later denied Archer’s motions to dismiss and to strike Wisk’s 2019.210 trade-secret disclosure.
- The court concluded Wisk’s pleadings and disclosure were adequate to proceed, but the evidentiary record did not show a likelihood of success on misappropriation, nor did it support irreparable harm or that the equities sharply favored an injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on trade-secret claims (for PI) | Wisk: circumstantial evidence (mass downloads, hires, quick development, "cora + tilt" label, patent similarity) shows misappropriation and likelihood of success. | Archer: evidence is equivocal; independent design work (FlightHouse), public/similar features, and lack of direct link from Wisk files to Maker rebut misappropriation. | Court: Denied PI—evidence too uncertain to show likelihood of success; serious questions possible but insufficient. |
| Irreparable harm and balance of equities (for PI) | Wisk: loss of secrecy and unfair "head start" cannot be remedied by money; disclosure to Archer employees/regulators causes irreparable injury. | Archer: Wisk delayed filing; harms to Archer from a broad injunction would be severe (impair core business); monetary remedies and later relief may suffice. | Court: Denied PI—Wisk failed to show likely irreparable harm or that equities sharply favor it. |
| Sufficiency of 2019.210 trade-secret disclosure (motion to strike) | Wisk: disclosure identifies concrete trade secrets with supporting expert declarations; suffices to permit discovery. | Archer: disclosure is overbroad/vague, uses non‑exhaustive examples and catchall language, and fails to show secrecy/value under §2019.210. | Court: Denied motion to strike—disclosure adequate at this stage; §2019.210 does not require proving secrecy/value in the disclosure. |
| Pleading sufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6) | Wisk: FAC (and incorporation of 2019.210 disclosure) plausibly alleges misappropriation via retained files, hires, and rapid development. | Archer: FAC is conclusory and fails to exclude innocent explanations; incorporation of disclosure should not substitute for pleading. | Court: Denied motion to dismiss—FAC plausibly pleads trade-secret claims; incorporation of the disclosure into the complaint is permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious-questions sliding scale where equities sharply favor plaintiff)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts need not accept conclusory allegations)
- MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) (plaintiff must identify trade secrets)
- Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003) (circumstantial evidence can be as probative as direct evidence)
- Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Grp. Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 21 (2005) (an implausibly fast development timeline can indicate misappropriation)
- Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court, 132 Cal. App. 4th 826 (2005) (expert declarations can validate a §2019.210 disclosure)
- O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 399 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (discussing injunctive relief and remedies in IP disputes)