Some of the biggest news so far this month came by way of the close of the jury trial portion of the Chanel v. What Goes Around Comes Around case; the jury sided with Chanel on all four of its causes of action) and the matter now moving on to proceed before Judge Stanton. The parties are now slated to present evidence related to “equitable remedies, such as disgorgement and injunctive relief” to the judge, with Chanel’s brief coming soon.
Against that background, I am turning my attention (to some extent) to another case that is readying for trial: Le Tote v. Urban Outfitters. The parties have been lodging trial briefs, various trial-specific motions (including a motion to instruct the jury on the elements of a trade secret claim by use of a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office video or alternatively permit Le Tote to use the trade secret video as a demonstrative exhibit), proposed jury instructions, etc. as of early this month.
For some background: San Francisco-based fashion rental company Le Tote filed suit in June 2020, accusing Urban Outfitters of gaining access to an array of valuable information – including “proprietary in-house tools” and “technological infrastructure and logistical functions” – under the guise of a potential acquisition. The deal never came to be, according to Le Tote, and instead, Urban Outfitters launched Nuuly – a copycat rental service of its own to “compete directly with Le Tote” – using the secret info that it had “stolen” during the parties’ M&A discussions.
> Le Tote’s Causes of Action: Specifically, Le Tote claims that Urban has engaged in violations of the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act in connection with its alleged misappropriation of Le Tote’s “business, engineering and technical information, including plans, formulas, compilations, techniques, processes, procedures, and programs, [which] constitute trade secrets.” Urban is also allegedly on the hook for breach of contract, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment, and Le Tote is seeking injunctive relief, “compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages,” and attorney’s fees.
