In a striking development, a dental health insurer has requested a Washington federal judge to dismiss trade secret claims made against a former executive. The insurer’s plea hinges on the former executive not being given the opportunity to request legal fees. This stems from the company’s perspective that she should not be considered a ‘winning party’ – a contentious claim grounded in the fact that the executive returned her company laptop post-lawsuit initiation.
The debate surrounding this case raises questions around the notion of ‘winning party’ in trade secret claims. In this instance, the insurer argues that by virtue of the ex-executive surrendering company property i.e., the laptop, following the commencement of the lawsuit, she foregoes this label, and subsequently, the right to request attorney fees.
As this case unfolds and the judge deliberates on the insurer’s request, it bears significant implications for future trade secret lawsuits, particularly concerning the rights of defendants and obligations regarding company property. Snippets of this compelling legal tug of war can be found here.