Volume 47, Issue 09 - September 2012
$75,000 PPG Suit Against Jeld-Wen Dismissed
PPG had filed the suit against Jeld-Wen in May, claiming that the company violated its rights to PPG’s patent applications “covering an insulating unit with a low thermal conducting edge.” The complaint alleged that per its license agreement, PPG had granted to Jeld-Wen certain rights and licenses with respect to the patents. In exchange for the rights and licenses granted to Jeld-Wen by PPG, the window manufacturer was required to make periodic royalty payments to PPG, according to the complaint.
“Despite several demands that it do so, Jeld-Wen has failed to make its required royalty payments,” alleged PPG in the complaint.
The suit also claimed that “as a direct and proximate result of defendant Jeld-Wen’s breach of contract, PPG has suffered damages resulting from Jeld-Wen’s failure and refusal to pay the royalty payments required by the license agreement.”
PPG alleged that its damages had exceeded $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, according to the complaint.
The original agreement regarding the patents was made on September 24, 1992, according to the complaint.
Jeld-Wen had not yet responded to the complaint, having received two extensions prior to the case’s dismissal. Officials from neither PPG nor Jeld-Wen had responded to requests for comment on the dismissal at press time.
Oldcastle and Staley Settle Trade Secret
According to the order, the parties were able to settle the dispute “without admission of any wrongdoing or liability.”
The $10,000 Staley will pay is considered “partial compensation for [OBE’s] fees and costs incurred in bringing this action,” according to the order. Beyond that, each party will bear his or its own fees and costs incurred in connection with the case.
According to the consent order signed by the court, a third-party forensic review of Staley’s personal home computer “found various Oldcastle business documents remained on his personal home computer following his separation from employment with Oldcastle.”
The forensic services provider permanently deleted “such information from Staley’s computer devices, and returned such computer devices to Staley on or about June 12, 2012.”
“On June 13, Staley certified that he no longer possessed any Oldcastle documents or material, including but not limited to any of the documents found by the computer forensic review on his personal computer devices,” wrote the court.
The order specifies that Staley is now “permanently enjoined from using or disclosing in any manner any proprietary, confidential or trade secret information of Oldcastle in his possession, custody or control.”
The court will “retain jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this consent order.”
“Should Oldcastle have a reasonable basis to believe that there has been a violation of the foregoing provision, it shall articulate such basis through written notice to Staley and his counsel,” wrote the court. “Staley shall respond to such notice in writing within seven days in an effort to address the issues raised by such notice.”
The order further provides that if OBE is not “satisfied with Staley’s response,” it may move the court for leave to conduct discovery regarding any suggested violations.