Adhesive Technologies v. Rapid

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: May 26, 2011
• Docket: 10-CV-075-SM
• Status: Published

Opinion

Adhesive Technologies v. Rapid 10-CV-075-SM 5/26/11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Adhesive Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff

v. Case No. 10-cv-75-SM Opinion No. 2 011 DNH 085 Isaberq Rapid A B , Defendant

O R D E R

Plaintiff, Adhesive Technologies, Inc. ("Ad-Tech"), located

in Hampton, New Hampshire, agreed to provide the engineering

design for, and to manufacture, customized glue guns for

Defendant Isaberg Rapid AB ("Rapid"), a Swedish corporation. The

glue guns were designed and manufactured by Ad-Tech, but, Ad-Tech

says. Rapid did not live up to its end of the bargain. Rapid was

expected by Ad-Tech to purchase enough manufactured guns to

provide Ad-Tech with a reasonable return on its investment, or,

all its glue gun requirements. But, Ad-Tech says. Rapid refused

to do so. Ad-Tech also claims that Rapid obtained confidential

technical information from Ad-Tech by false pretenses and then

used that information to have virtually identical glue guns

manufactured in China.

In this suit Ad-Tech alleges that Rapid breached its

contract, breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misappropriated its trade secrets, and committed fraud.

Rapid moves to dismiss this case for lack of personal

jurisdiction and, because it prefers to defend against Ad-Tech's

claims in Sweden, also moves to dismiss on forum non conveniens

grounds. Rapid also asserts failure to state a viable claim

(Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)), and insufficient fraud allegations

(Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)), as grounds that are "independently

sufficient alternative[s]" to its primary grounds for dismissal.

Doc. No. 23-1, pg. 3.

Background

Although the parties disagree with respect to the inferences

properly drawn from many of the jurisdictionally relevant facts,

the circumstances relevant to the pending issues are largely

undisputed.1

Rapid is a corporation organized under the laws of the

Kingdom of Sweden. Its principal place of business is in Hestra,

Sweden. Rapid manufactures and markets, among other things, hot

1 To the extent the motion seeks dismissal for failure to state a claim, it must be decided on the pleadings. The court may, however, consider facts outside the pleadings relevant to the personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens issues. In the few instances where relevant jurisdictional facts are disputed, the court accepts Ad-Tech's proffers as true. See infra Discussion, Part I; see also Adelson v. Hananel, 510 F.3d 43, 50 (1st Cir. 2007) .

2 melt glue guns for hobby and professional uses. Rapid has no

shareholders or employees in New Hampshire; it is not registered

to do business in this state; and it does not own or lease any

property here.

Ad-Tech is a New Hampshire corporation. Its principal place

of business is in Hampton, New Hampshire. The company designs

and develops adhesives and applicators for adhesives, including

hot melt glue guns and hot melt adhesive compositions for use in

such guns. The company was co-founded in 1981 by its president

and CEO, Peter Melendy, and its product design engineer, Richard

Belanger. For more than ten years, Ad-Tech and Rapid2 had a

commercial relationship pursuant to which Ad-Tech sold glue and

glue applicator products to Rapid for exclusive resale outside

North America. From 2001 to 2005, Rapid also sold related

products to Ad-Tech and shipped those products directly into New

Hampshire. During that time. Rapid employed a sales

representative in New Hampshire to foster its relationship with

Ad-Tech. In September, 2003, the regional manager of Rapid's

North American Tools Division, Danny Weil, contacted Melendy and

2 Ad-Tech's pre-2001 business relationship was with the French company Rocafix. In 2001, Rapid acquired Rocafix. For the sake of simplicity, the court will refer only to "Rapid."

3 arranged to meet with him at Ad-Tech's offices in Hampton.

Weil's contacts with Ad-Tech eventually ended in 2004.

Through several e-mails sent in 2001 to 2002, Rapid

approached Melendy regarding a possible redesign of some of

Rapid's glue guns. A few years later, on March 15, 2004, the

parties executed, in Cologne, Germany, a two page written

agreement ("Agreement") under the terms of which Ad-Tech would

perform engineering services in connection with the design of

internal components and mechanisms for new hot melt glue guns,

and would arrange for their manufacture. Rapid would provide the

external design for the guns (intended to have a "Euro-look") and

would purchase "some" of the finished products from Ad-Tech. Am.

Cmpt. Ex. A, 811, Doc. No. 20-1, pg. 1.

The Agreement also provided that the parties "shall have an

open and consultative technical co-operation regarding this

project," and that they "shall not . . . disclose or use for any

purposes other than those permitted under this Agreement, any

information of a confidential nature concerning the other party's

technology, business or affairs obtained in the course of their

activities under this Agreement." Am. Cmpt. Ex. A, 81818-9, Doc.

N o . 20-1, pg. 2.

4 Some six months later, in November, 2004, Rapid executives

Mikael Schentz and Toby Holm traveled to Ad-Tech's offices in

Hampton to "further define the parties' terms of performance and

to move toward a final agreement regarding the exact internal

design and development services" to be provided by Ad-Tech. Am.

Cmpt. 512, Doc. No. 20-1, pg. 5. Throughout the spring of 2005,

a series of meetings in Europe, conference calls, and e-mail

exchanges between Ad-Tech and Rapid occurred — generally related

to engineering questions or developments relevant to the

contractual undertaking. From 2004 until 2006, Ad-Tech performed

engineering services under the contract at its Hampton offices.

By early June, 2005, the new technical designs were completed and

the engineering was ready for Rapid's final approval.

Rapid did not immediately approve the final designs,

however, and for several months the parties worked to finalize

the project. On September 15, 2005, Rapid's "engineer

responsible for this program" requested "via telephone" that Ad-

Tech send to Rapid the complete design drawings for all parts of

the redesigned glue guns, as contained in CAD (computer aided

design) files. Am. Cmpt. Ex. A, 520, Doc. No. 20-1, pgs. 20-21.

Rapid claimed that its request was "exclusively for [Rapid's]

5 SAP/ISO3 documentation and for help with the final handleset

refinements." .Id. Ad-Tech sent the requested computer files,

but reminded Rapid "of the highly sensitive and confidential

nature of Ad-Tech's proprietary technology in the internal

designs" contained in the files. Am. Cmpt. Ex. A, 521, Doc. No.

20-1, pg. 7.

Ad-Tech thereafter arranged for the manufacture of the new

glue guns and delivered to Rapid "at least one shipment." Am.

Cmpt. 5 18, Doc. No. 20, pg. 6. The complaint asserts that at

some point Rapid disclosed Ad-Tech's confidential technical

information to manufacturers in China and Taiwan. Am. Cmpt. 543,

Doc. No. 20, pg. 11. "These manufacturers then produced and

supplied the new glue guns directly to . . . Rapid." .Id. Rapid

ceased buying glue guns from Ad-Tech. Ad-Tech alleges that

Rapid's stated reason for obtaining the confidential information

— European Union regulatory compliance — was false and

constituted a fraudulent material misrepresentation of fact. The

real reason Rapid sought the technical information was not

related to regulatory compliance, but "was to enable . . . Rapid

to eliminate Ad-Tech from the supply and distribution chain for

the new line of hot melt glue guns." Id.

3 SAP and ISO refer to European Union quality management standards.

6 Rapid moves to dismiss this case for lack of personal

jurisdiction, on forum non conveniens grounds, for failure to

state cognizable legal claims, and failure to plead fraud with

particularity.

Personal Jurisdiction

A. Statutory and Constitutional Prerequisites

In a diversity case, personal jurisdiction over a

nonresident defendant is governed, in part, by the forum state's

long-arm statute. See Goldman, Antonetti, Ferraiuoli, Axtmaver &

Hertell v. Medfit Int'l, Inc., 982 F.2d 686, 690 (1st Cir. 1993).

When personal jurisdiction is contested, the plaintiff bears the

burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. See Sawtelle v.

Farrell, 70 F.3d 1381, 1387 (1st Cir. 1995); Kowalski v. Doherty,

Wallace, Pillsburv & Murphy, Attorneys at Law, 787 F.2d 7, 8 (1st

Cir. 1986) .

Assertions of jurisdictional fact are construed in the

plaintiff's favor, see Buckley v. Bourdon, 682 F. Supp. 95, 98

(D.N.H. 1988), and, if the court proceeds based upon the written

submissions of the parties without an evidentiary hearing, the

plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that jurisdiction

exists. See Kowalski, 787 F.2d at 8; Bolt v. Gar-Tec Products,

Inc., 967 F.2d 671, 674-75 (1st Cir. 1992) . Nevertheless, the

7 plaintiff's demonstration of personal jurisdiction must be based

on specific facts set forth in the record in order to defeat a

defendant's motion to dismiss. See Ticketmaster-New York v.

Alioto, 26 F.3d 201, 203 (1st Cir. 1994) . And, "[i]n reviewing

the record before it, a court 'may consider pleadings,

affidavits, and other evidentiary materials without converting

the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment."' VDI

Technologies v. Price, 781 F. Supp. 85, 87 (D.N.H. 1991) (quoting

Lex Computer & Management Corp. v. Eslinqer & Pelton, P.C., 67 6

F. Supp. 399, 402 (D.N.H. 1987)).

To establish personal jurisdiction over a non-resident

defendant, the plaintiff must show, first, that the forum state's

long-arm statute confers jurisdiction over the defendant.

Second, plaintiff must show that the exercise of personal

jurisdiction comports with constitutional due process standards

(by showing that the defendant has sufficient "minimum contacts"

with the forum state and that the exercise of jurisdiction would

be consistent with traditional notions of fair play). See

Kowalski, 787 F.2d at 9-10. New Hampshire's corporate long-arm

statute, RSA 293-A:15.10, permits the exercise of personal

jurisdiction over foreign corporations and unregistered

professional associations to the full extent permitted by federal

law. See Sawtelle, 70 F.3d at 1388. Put another way, the reach of New Hampshire's corporate long-arm statute is coextensive with

the outer limits of due process protection afforded under the

federal constitution. Accordingly, the determinative issue is

whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Rapid comports

with federal constitutional due process guarantees.

Ad-Tech, then, must demonstrate that Rapid has "certain

minimum contacts with [New Hampshire] such that the maintenance

of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and

substantial justice.'" Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia,

S. A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984) (citation and internal

punctuation omitted). Before finding that a defendant has such

"minimum contacts," the court must be satisfied that the

defendant's conduct bears such a "substantial connection with the

forum State" that the defendant "should reasonably anticipate

being haled into court there." Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,

471 U.S. 462, 473-75 (1985) (citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.

v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980)).

B. General v. Specific Jurisdiction

A court may exercise either general or specific jurisdiction

over a defendant. "General jurisdiction exists when the

litigation is not directly founded on the defendant's forum-based

contacts, but the defendant has nevertheless engaged in

9 continuous and systematic activity, unrelated to the suit, in the

forum state." United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers v. 163

Pleasant St. Corp., 960 F.2d 1080, 1088 (1st Cir. 1992). Ad-Tech

does not contend that Rapid engaged in "continuous and systematic

activity" in New Hampshire, nor does it ask the court to exercise

general jurisdiction over Rapid. Accordingly, if the court may

properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Rapid, it is

specific jurisdiction.

A court may exercise specific jurisdiction when the cause of

action arises directly out of, or relates to, the defendant's

forum-based contacts. United Elec. Workers, 960 F.2d at 1088-89.

In an effort to assist trial courts in determining whether they

may properly exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a

defendant, the Court of Appeals has formulated a three part test.

First, the claim underlying the litigation must directly

arise out of, or relate to, the defendant's forum state

activities. Second, the defendant's in-state contacts must

represent a purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting

activities in the forum state, thereby invoking the benefits and

protections of that state's laws and making the defendant's

involuntary presence before the state's courts foreseeable.

Third, the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable, in light

10 of what are known as the "gestalt factors." United Elec.

Workers, 960 F.2d at 1089. An affirmative finding as to each of

those three elements — relatedness, purposeful availment, and

reasonableness — is necessary to support exercise of personal

jurisdiction. See Phillips Exeter Academy v. Howard Phillips

Fund, Inc., 196 F.3d 284, 288 (1st Cir. 1999) .

C. Relatedness

To sustain its prima facie burden as to the first element of

the three part specific jurisdiction test, Ad-Tech must

demonstrate that its claims directly relate to, or arise from.

Rapid's contacts with this forum. Harlow v. Children's Hosp.,

432 F.3d 50, 61 (1st Cir. 2005). Although the relatedness

standard is a "flexible, relaxed standard," Adelson, 510 F.3d at

49 (quotation and citation omitted), it is not satisfied where

"'the connection between the cause of action and the defendant's

forum-state contacts seems attenuated and indirect.'" Harlow,

432 F.3d at 61 (quoting United Elec. Workers, 960 F.2d at 1088-

89). "Instead, the defendant's in-state conduct must form an

important, or [at least] material, element of proof in the

plaintiff's case." .Id. (quotation omitted) (alteration in

original) .

11 1. Rapid's Contacts with New Hampshire

"In all cases, a court must begin its relatedness inquiry by

identifying the alleged contacts, since there can be no requisite

nexus between the contacts and the cause of action if no contacts

exist." United States v. Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd., 274 F.3d 610, 621

(1st Cir. 2001). Here, Ad-Tech has offered evidence showing the

following (relevant) contacts between Rapid and New Hampshire:

(1) e-mails between Rapid and Ad-Tech from 2001 to 2002; (2) a

November 2004 meeting at Ad-Tech's offices in Hampton; and (3) e-

mails dated September 15 and 16, 2005, from Rapid's engineer,

Francis Richardot, to Melendy requesting CAD files containing

complete design drawings of all engineered components of the glue

guns.

Both parties seem to agree that the identified contacts are

pertinent to the jurisdictional inquiry, and constitute forum

contacts for purposes of the court's jurisdictional analysis.4

4 Rapid's only argument to the contrary is that Ad-Tech has not shown that Melendy was in New Hampshire when he received e-mails from Rapid. Under the prima facie standard, the court finds that the host information on the e-mails ("adhesivetech") is sufficient to establish that Rapid's e-mails were sent to and received in New Hampshire. Compare Euro-Pro Operating LLC v. Schutte, Case No. 05-11946-DPW, 2006 WL 239802, at *2 (D. Mass. Jan. 31, 2006) (plaintiff failed to establish e-mail contacts with Massachusetts where "most of the [e-mail] recipients are listed without a hostname, and the only identified hostname with a geographical connection suggests a Florida location").

12 See Int'l Paper Box Mach. Co., Inc. v. Paperboard U.S. Indus.

Inc., Case No. Civ. 99-184-JD, 2000 WL 1480462, at *3 (D.N.H.

Feb. 8, 2000) ("[C]ommunications to the forum state by telephone

calls, letters, and other means may constitute sufficient

contacts to confer jurisdiction") (citing Burger King, 471 U.S.

462, 476 (1985)); see also GT Solar Inc. v. Goi, Case No. 08-cv-

2 4 9-JL, 2009 WL 3417587, at *9 (D.N.H. Oct. 16, 2009) (finding

defendant "reached into the forum through his e-mail and

telephone contacts"). The primary dispute in this case is

whether Rapid's contacts are "meaningful." That is, whether they

are "sufficiently related to" Ad-Tech's contract and tort claims.

Int'l Paper Box, 2000 WL 1480462, at *3.

2. Contract Claims

The mere presence of a contract relationship between a

defendant and state resident plaintiff is not enough. Swiss Am.

Bank, 274 F.3d at 621 (mere presence of contract cannot

"automatically establish minimum contacts"). Rather, the court

will look to

the parties' 'prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties' actual course of dealing.'" Davnard, 290 F.3d at 52 (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 479 (1985)). [Plaintiff] . . . could show, for example, that "the defendant's contacts with the forum were instrumental either in the formation of the contract or in its breach." Phillips

13 Exeter Acad, v. Howard Phillips Fund, 196 F.3d 284, 289 (1st Cir. 1999) .

Jet Wine & Spirits, Inc. v. Bacardi & Co., 298 F.3d 1,7 (1st Cir.

2002 ) .

Here, Ad-Tech argues that the 2001-2002 e-mails from Rapid

to Ad-Tech concerned the formation of the contract, which was

later memorialized in the written Agreement of March 2004. It

further contends that the November 2004 face-to-face meeting in

New Hampshire was for the purpose of refining the Agreement's

terms, and so, was also directly related to the contract's

formation (or modification) as well as performance obligations.

The November face-to-face meeting occurred several months

after the parties signed the Agreement. Ad-Tech says the meeting

was for the purpose of putting meat on the bones of the Agreement

— clarifying specific details, and working out design and

production issues. Melendy describes the meeting this way:

In November, 2004, Mikael Schentz and Toby Holm came to visit Ad-Tech in its Hampton, New Hampshire offices. Schentz and Holm and Ad-Tech personnel reviewed the state of Ad-Tech's efforts to engineer glue guns with Isaberg's external design concepts, and further reviewed the wide range of Ad-Tech's glue-gun innovations, which could bring unique features to the new designs then in process. Schentz and Holm took a number of those innovated products back with them and.

14 in time, a number of the unique features of those products appeared in Isaberg's new line of glue guns.

Melendy Dec. 5 33, Doc. No. 28-2, pg. 10.

Viewed in the light most favorable to Ad-Tech, Melendy's

testimony suggests that Rapid agents came to New Hampshire for

specific purposes related to contract obligations, performance,

and potential modification with respect to acceptable design

criteria. All in all, while no doubt multi-faceted, the meeting

constituted a forum contact directly related to the contract at

issue, and the claimed breach (acquisition of technical

information contractually required to be kept confidential and

used restrictively, which was later disclosed and

misappropriated).

The 2001-2002 e-mails also appear to be directly related to

the contract's formation, at least on this prima facie showing.

First, Melendy states in his sworn declaration that Rapid and Ad-

Tech engaged in "multiple discussions over a period of several

years," starting with "original project discussions . . . in

2001" for a Rapid product line redesign aimed at creating a

"Euro-look" for the exterior of Rapid's glue guns. Melendy Dec.

12, 28, Doc. No. 28-2, pgs. 3, 8. He states that the

discussions culminated in the parties' "formaliz[ing] ... of

15 the new design project" via the written Agreement of March, 2004.

Melendy Dec. 5 29, Doc. No. 28-2, pgs. 9. In support of

Melendy's averment that discussions leading to the contract's

formation began in 2001, Ad-Tech submitted copies of e-mails

dated from October 4, 2001, to August, 2002, which discuss

Rapid's idea for a product line redesign. Each e-mail references

all or some of the five Rapid glue guns that the March 2004

written Agreement defines as "product."5 See Melendy Dec. Exs.

A, B, I, Doc. Nos. 28-3, 28-4, 28-11. In particular, the August

22, 2002, e-mail from Rapid's Thierry Leterme to Ad-Tech's Peter

Melendy contains the subject line "CONFIDENTIAL: Design DiY

Guns," and, in the body of the message states that Rapid's board

of directors "approved the idea to work on the new design for the

entire DiY range." It goes on to state that the "Initial product

range" is to include four glue guns — all of which are later

listed in the written Agreement as "products" to be redesigned.

The e-mail also describes an "Alternative product range" that

includes two guns that are later listed in the Agreement as

"products." See Melendy Dec. Ex. I, Doc. No. 28-11.

5 The written Agreement of March, 2004, defines the "products" for which Ad-Tech will "integrate current or innovative components" as five Rapid glue guns listed by description and their former alpha-numeric names (e.g., "Low Temperature for Oval Glue Sticks (former EG80/CG90)"). Am. Cmpt. Ex. 1, Doc. No. 20- 1, p g . 4 .

16 In short, when viewed in the light most favorable to Ad-

Tech, these e-mail communications contributed meaningfully to,

and led directly to, formation of the contract between the

parties. Although the 2001-2002 e-mails preceded the 2004

Agreement by two to three years, which might suggest that the

communications were only tenuously related to the 2004 written

instrument, the court must disregard that competing inference.

See Massachusetts Sch. of Law v. ABA, 142 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir.

1998) (under the prima facie standard, the court must "take

specific facts affirmatively alleged by the plaintiff as true

(whether or not disputed) and construe them in the light most

congenial to the plaintiff's jurisdictional claim"). In any

event, the record as developed supports the view that the

referenced e-mails were directly related to contract formation.

3. Tort Claim for Trade Secret Misappropriation

To meet the relatedness requirement, Ad-Tech must establish

a causative connection between Rapid's New Hampshire contacts and

the trade secret misappropriation claim. The level of causation

required lies "between a 'but for' and a strict proximate cause

test," GT Solar Inc. v. Goi, Case No. 08-cv-249-JL, 2009 WL

3417587, at *12, n.29 (D.N.H. Oct. 16, 2009), although the

"proximate cause" standard will apply in most cases. See Harlow,

432 F.3d at 61 ("[I]n most cases 'the proximate cause standard

17 better comports with the relatedness inquiry' .... [but] is

not a per se requirement of specific jurisdiction.") (citations

omitted) (quoting Nowak v. Tak How Invs., 94 F.3d 708, 715 (1st

Cir. 1996)). See also Nowak, 94 F.3d at 716 (finding relatedness

in the absence of a "proximate cause relationship," where link

between foreign hotel's solicitation of reservations in

Massachusetts with subsequent death of guest in hotel pool was

"meaningful"). Regardless of the precise degree of legal

causation required in any particular case, the touchstone of the

inquiry is whether the contacts "form an important, or [at least]

material, element of proof in the plaintiff's case." Harlow, 432

F.3d at 61 Xd. (quotation omitted) (alteration in original).

Here, Rapid's e-mail contacts with New Hampshire from 2001-

2002 are meaningfully linked to Ad-Tech's misappropriation claim

because they form an important element of plaintiff's proof.

Under New Hampshire's version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act

("UTSA"), use or disclosure of trade secrets, under circumstances

giving rise to a duty of confidentiality, constitutes

misappropriation. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. ("RSA") ch. 350-B:l.

Here, Rapid's alleged duty of confidentiality is at the heart of

Ad-Tech's misappropriation claim. Rapid's 2001-2002 e-mail

contacts with Ad-Tech in New Hampshire "were instrumental in the

formation of the confidential business relationship," and the

18 contractual obligation of confidentiality. Scuderi Group, LLC v.

LGD Tech., LLC, 575 F. Supp. 2d 312, 322 (D. Mass. 2008).

In the August 22, 2002, e-mail, for example, the

confidential nature of the parties' relationship with respect to

the redesign project was made explicit in the subject line, which

reads "CONFIDENTIAL: Design DiY Guns." Moreover, as already

determined, the e-mails were instrumental in the formation of the

written Agreement, which includes a confidentiality clause. The

e-mail contacts, therefore, are sufficiently related to Ad-Tech's

misappropriation claim. See Scuderi Group, 575 F. Supp. 2d at

322 (finding that defendant's contacts with Massachusetts were

related to plaintiff's trade secret misappropriation claim

because they were instrumental in the formation of the parties'

nondisclosure agreement and confidential relationship, by which

"Defendants gained access to Plaintiff's confidential

information").

Rapid's September 15 and 16, 2005, e-mails, in which it

requested Ad-Tech's allegedly confidential information, are also

directly related to the misappropriation claim. Those requests

were intended to acquire, and succeeded in acquiring, the trade

secrets said to have been misappropriated, allegedly based upon

material misrepresentations. Proof of those contacts will form

19 an important element of proof with respect to that claim. That

is true without regard to whether the acquisition was "proper" as

having been authorized by the parties' Agreement. See RSA ch.

350-B:l 11(b) ("'misappropriation' means" use or disclosure of a

trade secret by a person whose "knowledge of the trade secret"

either was "derived from or through a person who had utilized

improper means to acquire it" or "acquired under circumstances

giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use").

Rapid is of the view that this rather clear causal

connection between Rapid's September, 2005, requests for the

alleged trade secrets on the one hand and Ad-Tech's

misappropriation claim, on the other, is jurisdictionally

irrelevant. The CAD files, it argues, contained no Ad-Tech trade

secrets which could be misappropriated. It points out that, to

the extent the CAD files contained designs for the external

components of the glue guns, those designs belonged to Rapid

under the express terms of the contract. Further, it argues,

designs of the internal components were not trade secrets because

Ad-Tech's guns were in the public domain and "the redesigned glue

guns were to be made with internal components that were generally

available, well-known in the industry, not proprietary and used

by many competing glue gun manufacturers." Schentz Dec., Doc.

No. 23-2, 5 16.

20 Rapid's point is, essentially, one that addresses disputed

material facts and speaks more to the merits than to

jurisdiction, but its argument fails for another reason as well —

Ad-Tech has made a prima facie showing "based on specific facts

set forth in the record," VDI Technologies, 781 F. Supp. at 87,

that the CAD files contained Ad-Tech's trade secrets. First, the

written Agreement anticipates that during contract performance

both parties would be providing confidential information. Am.

Cmpt. 5 9, Doc. 20-1, pg. 2. Moreover, the evidence submitted by

Ad-Tech suggests that during the course of its contract

performance Ad-Tech reconfigured the internal components of the

guns to embody new Ad-Tech innovations. In his sworn declaration

Melendy avers that "it was never envisioned that these new glue

guns would be made with generic parts; rather, it was always

contemplated that these new glue guns would have a customized

design." Melendy Dec. 5 31. E-mails attached to Melendy's

declaration suggest that the customization to which Melendy

refers was not limited to the external design, but also included

internal components. See, e.g.. Doc. 28-10, Ex. H, Rapid's

Leterme to Melendy ("In other words, the outcome could then be

. . . new design for your glue guns . . . new design for our glue

guns") (emphasis added); Ex. Q, Melendy to Rapid's Mennborg ("We

have sent the various files for the internal parts of each gun.

These parts are the property of Adhesive Technologies and the

21 ownership therefore is separate and apart from the handleset

designs."). Finally, the sworn declaration of Ad-Tech's

engineer, Richard Belanger, shows that in providing product

design services under the contract, Ad-Tech made changes to the

internal components. See Belanger Dec., Doc. No. 28-20 3-5

("My primary task was to configure the interior of each of the

new glue guns") (emphasis added). Whether and to what extent the

engineering/design effort by Ad-Tech constituted trade secrets is

disputed, but for these purposes the court must accept the

jurisdictional allegations in a light favorable to Ad-Tech.

For these reasons, the court finds that Ad-Tech has made a

prima facie showing that its contract and misappropriation claims

are sufficiently related to Rapid's meaningful contacts with New

Hampshire.

D. Purposeful Availment

In determining whether Ad-Tech has satisfied the second

prong of the jurisdictional test — showing that Rapid

"purposefully availed" itself of the rights and privileges of

doing business in New Hampshire — the court must determine

whether Rapid "engaged in any purposeful activity related to the

forum that would make the exercise of jurisdiction fair, just, or

reasonable." Sawtelle, 70 F.3d at 1391 (citation omitted).

22 " [R]andom or fortuitous" contacts are not "purposeful." Burger

King, 471 U.S. at 474-75. The "two focal points" of the

purposeful availment inquiry are "voluntariness and

foreseeability." Nowak, 94 F.3d at 716. The defendant's forum

contacts "must be voluntary — that is, not based on the

unilateral actions of another party or a third person." Id.

(citing Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475). Moreover, the defendant's

contacts "must be such that he should reasonably anticipate being

haled into court there." JCd. (citing World-Wide Volkswagen, 444

U.S. 286, 297 (1980) ) .

1. Voluntariness

A defendant's contacts are not voluntary when it "merely

accepts a relationship tendered from the state." International

Paper Box Machine Co., Inc. v. Paperboard U.S. Industries, Inc.,

Case No. Civ. 99-184-JD, 2000 WL 1480462, at *5 (D.N.H. 2000).

Instead, defendant "must reach out to the plaintiff's state to

create a relationship." Jd. (citing Phillips Exeter Academy, 196

F.3d at 292). Here, the evidence, as discussed above, shows

that, through its forum contacts. Rapid reached out to New

Hampshire to create a contractual and confidential relationship

with Ad-Tech, seeking Ad-Tech's expertise and efforts with

respect to its planned product line redesign. Rapid's contacts

with New Hampshire were, therefore, voluntary.

23 2. Foreseeability

"[W]here a defendant 'deliberately' has engaged in

significant activities within a State . . . or has created

'continuing obligations' between himself and residents of the

forum," it is reasonably foreseeable that he may be subject to

suit there. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474-76; see also Int'1

Paper Box, 2000 WL 1480462, at *5. In assessing foreseeability,

the court should look to "whether the defendant benefitted from

[its forum] . . . contacts in a way that made jurisdiction

foreseeable." See Phillips Exeter Academy, 196 F.3d at 292;

Sawtelle, 70 F.3d at 1394.

In this case. Rapid could have reasonably foreseen that it

would be subject to suit in New Hampshire. Rapid first

approached Ad-Tech, through its October 4, 2001, e-mail, to begin

discussions of the glue gun redesign. After that, it continued

to pursue that project through additional e-mail contacts, and,

particularly, its specific request for Ad-Tech's alleged

confidential and trade secret information. The ultimate

commercial benefit for Rapid arising out of its forum contacts

consisted of the agreement reached and the confidential technical

information obtained. In short, through its voluntary forum

contacts. Rapid created continuing obligations between itself and

Ad-Tech, obtained the information allegedly misappropriated, and

24 put itself in a position that (allegedly) facilitated its

improper breach and conversion. Although some evidence suggests

that Rapid's September 2005 requests for the detailed CAD files

may have been "addressed to delays in the project schedule and

issues about" Ad-Tech's performance, Int'l Paper Box, 2000 WL

1480462, at *5, those contacts, nevertheless, are directly

related to the claimed breach of contract. Compare, id. (finding

that defendants could not have foreseen being haled into court in

New Hampshire where their contacts related only to plaintiff's

delays and machine performance problems from which no commercial

benefit was derived).

E. Reasonableness

The final jurisdictional question is whether the exercise of

jurisdiction would be reasonable in light of the five "gestalt"

factors. See Sawtelle, 70 F.3d at 1394. Those factors are:

(1) the defendant's burden of appearing; (2) the forum

state's interest in adjudicating the dispute; (3) the plaintiff's

interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief; (4) the

judicial system's interest in obtaining the most effective

resolution of the controversy; and (5) the common interests of

all sovereigns in promoting substantive social policies. Id.

25 The reasonableness prong "evokes a sliding scale: the weaker

the plaintiff's showing on the first two prongs (relatedness and

purposeful availment), the less a defendant need show in terms of

unreasonableness to defeat jurisdiction." Ticketmaster-New York,

26 F.3d 201, 210 (1st Cir. 1994). In contrast, on a firm showing

of relatedness and purposeful availment, defendant "'must present

a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations

would render jurisdiction unreasonable.'" M&I Eastpoint Techn.,

Inc. v. Mid-Med Bank, Case No. Civ. 99-411-JD, at *5 (quoting

Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477). Here, Ad-Tech has made a modestly

firm showing of relatedness and purposeful availment; Rapid's

burden on the reasonableness prong, therefore, is modestly

substantial.

The first gestalt factor looks at "the burden on the

defendant of appearing in a foreign jurisdiction." GT Solar,

2009 WL 3417587, at *11. However, "'staging a defense in a

foreign jurisdiction is almost always inconvenient and/or costly

. . . [so] this factor is only meaningful where a party can

demonstrate some kind of special or unusual burden.'" Id.

(quoting Pritzker v. Yari, 42 F.3d 53, 64 (1st Cir. 1994)). To

defeat jurisdiction. Rapid must show that the exercise of

jurisdiction would be "onerous in a special, unusual, or other

constitutionally significant way." Pritzker, 42 F.3d at 64.

26 Here, the first factor does not tip the scales in Rapid's favor.

Although Rapid is a Swedish company, it has not demonstrated that

defending in this forum poses a unique burden.6

The second factor focuses on the interest of the forum

state. Nowak, 94 F.3d at 718. The forum state's interest is not

evaluated by comparing it to the interest of an alternative

forum:

[A]ithough a forum state has a significant interest in obtaining jurisdiction over a defendant who causes tortious injury within its borders, that interest is diminished where the injury occurred outside the forum state. Nonetheless, our task is not to compare the interest of the two sovereigns — the place of injury and forum state — but to determine whether the forum state has an interest.

Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

It is well-established that New Hampshire "has a legitimate

. . . interest in regulating commercial transactions that are

performed within its borders, as well as in enforcing the

contracts entered by its businesses . . . ." Jet Wine, 298 F.3d

at 12 (finding second factor weighed in favor of plaintiff).

6 Although the court "is mindful that the factors applicable to personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens are distinct and are not to be conflated into a single analysis," M&I Eastpoint, 2000 WL 1466150, at *5, the court's forum non conveniens analysis of party and witness convenience, and access to documentary evidence, see infra, informs the present jurisdictional analysis.

27 Here, New Hampshire's interest is manifest, because "the source

of the parties' [contractual] dispute is a contract to which one

of the parties is a New Hampshire corporation that does business

in New Hampshire," .Id., and Ad-Tech performed its contractual

obligations in this state. New Hampshire likewise has an

interest in Ad-Tech's trade secret misappropriation claim. "New

Hampshire certainly has an interest in protecting its citizens

from losses that occur as a result of misappropriation of trade

secrets, even if the actual misappropriation occurred elsewhere."

GT Solar, 2009 WL 3417587, at *11. And although New Hampshire's

"interest may be diminished by the fact that the actual

misappropriation occurred" in Europe, its interest "is

nonetheless important" because "the forum contacts are alleged to

be vital to the extraction of those secrets." .Id. The second

factor weighs in favor of Ad-Tech.

With respect to the third factor, "a plaintiff's choice of

forum must be accorded a degree of deference with respect to the

issue of its own convenience." Sawtelle, 70 F.3d at 1395. Here,

it obviously would be more convenient for Ad-Tech to litigate its

claims here rather than elsewhere. Furthermore, Ad-Tech "did not

choose a random forum, but rather its home district, where it has

a heightened interest." GT Solar, 2009 WL 3417587, at *12

28 (citing Sawtelle, 70 F.3d at 1395). This factor, therefore,

favors Ad-Tech.

The fourth factor requires the court to evaluate "the

judicial system's interest in obtaining the most effective

resolution of the controversy." Nowak, 94 F.3d at 718. This

factor is usually "a wash." Xd. Here, as discussed more fully

below in the forum non conveniens analysis, potential witnesses

and key documents are located both in New Hampshire and in

Europe. Each forum, moreover, "will present challenges involving

limits on [each] court's subpoena power and the availability of

witnesses." GT Solar, 2009 WL 3417587, at *11. This factor,

therefore, favors neither party.

Finally, the fifth factor "addresses the interests of the

affected governments in substantive social policies." Nowak, 94

F.3d at 719. "[T]he most prominent policy implicated is the

ability of a state to provide a convenient forum for its

residents to redress injuries inflicted by out-of-forum actors."

Sawtelle, 70 F.3d at 1395. In this case, the fifth factor favors

neither party. See GT Solar, 2009 WL 3417587, at *12. New

Hampshire has a strong interest in providing its citizens a forum

to redress injuries. See Scuderi Group, 575 F. Supp. 2d at 324.

The Swedish judicial district in which Rapid is located,

29 likewise, has a strong interest in providing a fair forum for its

citizens faced with breach of contract and trade secret

misappropriation claims made by foreign citizens. See Nowak, 94

F .3d at 719.

The court finds that the gestalt factors weigh either

neutrally or in favor of Ad-Tech. The exercise of personal

jurisdiction in New Hampshire, therefore, is reasonable. Based

on Ad-Tech's additional showings of relatedness and purposeful

availment, the court concludes that Rapid is subject to personal

jurisdiction in New Hampshire.7

Forum Non Conveniens

Rapid also seeks dismissal under the doctrine of forum non

conveniens, arguing that Sweden is the most appropriate forum to

adjudicate this dispute. "When a defendant moves for dismissal

on forum non conveniens grounds, it bears the burden of showing

both that an adequate alternative forum exists and that

considerations of convenience and judicial efficiency strongly

7 Alternatively, under the theory of pendant personal jurisdiction, the court has personal jurisdiction over Rapid on all of Ad-Tech's claims (except the fraud claim, which is dismissed) by virtue of having personal jurisdiction over at least one of Ad-Tech's claims (the misappropriation claim). See, e.g., D'Jamoos v. Atlas Aircraft Ctr., Inc., 669 F. Supp. 2d 167, 174-75 (D.N.H. 2009) (McAuliffe, J.).

30 favor litigating the claim in the alternative forum." Interface

Partners Int'l, Ltd. v. Hananel, 575 F.3d 97, 101 (1st Cir.

2009).

A defendant can satisfy the first condition if it

"demonstrates that the alternative forum addresses the types of

claims that the plaintiff has brought and that the defendant is

amenable to service of process there." .Id. (quotations omitted).

The second condition requires the defendant to show that, on

balance, "the compendium of factors relevant to the private and

public interests implicated by the case strongly favors

dismissal." .Id. (quotations omitted). Private factors include:

"the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of

compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of

obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; and the possibility

of view of premises, if [a] view would be appropriate to the

action," Iraqorri v. International Elevator, Inc., 203 F.3d 8, 12

(1st Cir. 2000) (quotations and brackets omitted) (quoting Gulf

Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)), as well as "all

other practical problems that make trial of a case easy,

expeditious and inexpensive and questions as to the

enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained." Mercier v.

Sheraton Int'l, Inc., 935 F.2d 419, 424 (1st Cir. 1991)

(quotations and brackets omitted).

31 Public interest factors "include such things as the

administrative difficulties of docket congestion; the general

goal of 'having localized controversies decided at home,' and

concomitantly, ease of access to the proceedings on the part of

interested citizens; the trier's relative familiarity with the

appropriate rules of decision; and the burdens of jury duty."

Iraqorri, 203 F.3d at 12 (quoting Gulf Oil Corp., 330 U.S. at

508-09) .8

The Court of Appeals has emphasized that the plaintiff's

forum choice should not be given dispositive weight.

Nevertheless, that choice "will be disturbed only rarely" and the

doctrine of forum non conveniens should be used only "to avoid

serious unfairness." Nowak, 94 F.3d at 719.

A. Adequate Alternative Forum

Rapid has supportably argued that the Swedish courts would

provide an adequate alternative forum, and of course that is no

8 In balancing the private and public factors, the court will focus on those most pertinent to the case before it. See Iraqorri, 203 F.3d at 12 ("[N]ot every item applies in every case and, in the last analysis, the list of factors is illustrative rather than all-inclusive. The ultimate inquiry is where trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice") (quotations and brackets omitted) (quoting Roster v. (American) Lumbermens M u t . Casualty Co., 330 U.S. 518, 527 (1947) ) .

32 doubt true. Ad-Tech does not dispute the evidence submitted, and

complains only that Sweden will not allow a jury trial. The

absence of a jury trial, however, is insufficient to render the

alternative forum inadequate. See Lockman Foundation v.

Evangelical Alliance Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 768 (9th Cir. 1991)

(finding foreign forum adequate despite lack of jury trial);

Maqnin v. Teledvne Continental Motors, 91 F.3d 1424, 1430 (11th

Cir. 1996) (same). In light of Rapid's undisputed evidence, the

court finds that Swedish courts would serve as an adequate

alternative forum.

B. Convenience and Judicial Efficiency

Rapid has failed to demonstrate that the private and public

factors strongly counsel in favor of dismissal. With regard to

witness convenience and compulsory process, the scales are not

tipped heavily in favor of a Swedish forum. Undoubtedly,

witnesses living in Belgium and France would find it easier to

travel to Sweden than to the United States. However, the reverse

is likely true of Ad-Tech's witnesses located here. See Nowak,

94 F.3d 708, 720 (1st Cir. 1996) (finding cost and inconvenience

to defendant of transporting witnesses to Massachusetts was not

"disproportionate to" the burden plaintiff and its witnesses

would experience if the case were tried in Hong Kong). While the

European witnesses are not subject to compulsory process in New

33 Hampshire, Rapid has not shown that potential French and Belgium

witnesses (some of whom are no longer employed by Rapid) are

subject to compulsory process in Sweden. With regard to

potential Chinese and Taiwanese witnesses, both forums are

equally lacking in power to compel their appearance and travel to

Sweden or the United States would be equally burdensome. Thus,

on balance, while the greater number of European witnesses, as

compared to American witnesses, tips the scales moderately in

Sweden's favor, there has been no showing that witness

considerations "strongly" favor litigating this case in Sweden.

In addition. Rapid has not shown that access to documentary

proof is significantly easier in Sweden than in New Hampshire.

Counsel for Rapid conceded at oral argument that European privacy

laws will likely place complicated roadblocks in the way of both

parties' access to some types of documents, regardless of where

the case is litigated. Moreover, although some documents will

likely need translating for use in this court, as compared to the

Swedish court, that fact, when considered with all other private

factors in this case, does not tip the scale strongly in favor of

the Swedish forum.

Finally, the public interest weighs in favor of neither

venue because it would be "difficult to describe [this] dispute

34 as localized" in one venue and not the other. ECCO Retail, Inc.

v. Comfort Group, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-211-LM, 2010 WL 4365861,

at *4 (D.N.H. Nov. 3, 2010). Ad-Tech is a New Hampshire

corporation that performed its contractual obligations in New

Hampshire, while Rapid performed its contractual obligations in

Sweden and France.

Accordingly, in the exercise of its discretion, the court

will not disturb Ad-Tech's choice of forum.

Failure to State Claims Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

A motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted," Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6), requires the

court to conduct a limited inquiry, focusing not on "whether a

plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is

entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Scheuer v.

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Although the complaint need

only contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2),

it must "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft

v. Iqbal, 129 S. C t . 1937, 1949 (2009) (citation and internal

punctuation omitted).

35 In other words, "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the

'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief' requires more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twomblv, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Instead, the facts alleged in

the complaint must, if credited as true, be sufficient to

"nudge[] [plaintiff's] claims across the line from conceivable to

plausible." .Id. at 570. If, however, the "factual allegations

in the complaint are too meager, vague, or conclusory to remove

the possibility of relief from the realm of mere conjecture, the

complaint is open to dismissal." SEC v. Tambone, 597 F.3d 436,

442 (1st Cir. 2010).

In resolving a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the

court "should employ a two-pronged approach." Ocasio-Hernandez

v. Fortuno-Burset, 2011 WL 1228768, at *9 (1st Cir. April 1,

2011) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. C t . at 1949) . First it should

identify and disregard conclusory allegations. .Id. "Non-

conclusory factual allegations . . . must then be treated as

true" and assessed to determine whether they "'allow [...] the court

to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for

the misconduct alleged.'" .Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. C t . at

1949). If they do, the "claim has facial plausibility." Id.

See also Tambone, 597 F.3d at 441 (the court must "accept as true

36 all well-pleaded facts set out in the complaint and indulge all

reasonable inferences in favor of the pleader."). In making the

plausibility determination, the court must evaluate "all the

facts alleged" and their "cumulative effect." Ocasio-Hernandez,

2011 WL 1228768, at *9.

Rapid challenges the facial plausibility of the complaint,

contending that the allegations do not state claims under any

theory advanced under the four counts of the complaint.

A. Trade Secret Misappropriation

The New Hampshire UTSA provides for injunctive and monetary

relief for trade secret "misappropriation." RSA ch. 350-B:2.

Under UTSA, "misappropriation" means, among other things.

(b) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who:

(1) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or

(2) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; or acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or

37 RSA 350-B:l 11(b) (emphasis added)

Rapid argues that Ad-Tech's complaint fails to plausibly

allege all of the elements of an UTSA claim, particularly the

existence of trade secrets. Accepting as true "all the facts

alleged" and their "cumulative effect," Ocasio-Hernandez, 2011 WL

1228768, at *11 (emphasis in original), the court finds

otherwise.

First, Ad-Tech has plausibly alleged the existence of trade

secrets. The complaint generally alleges that "information

developed under the Agreement included valuable trade secrets of

Ad-Tech." Am. Cmpt. 537, Doc. No. 20, pg. 9. Standing alone,

this allegation is insufficient. However, several other, more

specific allegations give rise to a reasonable and plausible

inference that the confidential engineering information in the

CAD files contained Ad-Tech's technical trade secrets. Factual

allegations describing the expertise and services Ad-Tech

provided Rapid under the contract, for example, plausibly suggest

that Ad-Tech used or developed its own trade secrets in

performing its contractual design obligations. See Am. Cmpt. 55

8, 9, 11, 15, Doc. No. 20, pgs. 3-6. The written Agreement

itself, which is incorporated into the complaint, contemplated

that "Ad-Tech [would] integrate current or innovative components

38 to fit the Rapid's suggested design." Am Cmpt., Ex. 1, 5 2, Doc.

No. 20-1, pg. 1) (emphasis added).9 Consistent with the

Agreement, the CAD files are alleged to include "engineering

drawings, relating to the components Ad-Tech designed

specifically for the new glue guns and also relating to

components used in existing Ad-Tech glue guns that were used in

the new glue guns." Am. Cmpt. 5 19, Doc. No. 20, pg. 6. Ad-

Tech' s complaint, moreover, sets forth specific factual

allegations describing what actions it took to protect its

proprietary information contained in the CAD files. Am. Cmpt.

9, 21, Doc. No. 20, pgs. 4, 7. Those actions suggest that the

information was not generally known to the public. See

MedioStream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2010 WL 4274578, 6 (E.D.

Tex., 2010) (holding that factual allegation regarding the

protective steps taken by the plaintiff rendered plausible

plaintiff's allegation that the information was not generally

known to the public).

Ad-Tech may be required at a later stage in this litigation,

such as during the discovery process, to more specifically

9 In the Rule 12(b)(6) analysis the court looks only to the allegations pled, and does not take into consideration (as was done in the jurisdictional analysis) evidence proffered by Ad- Tech in support of its allegation that the CAD files contained trade secrets.

39 identify the alleged trade secrets. See, e.g., Imax Corp. v.

Cinema Techs., 152 F.3d 1161, 1167-68 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming

district court's discovery sanction against plaintiff for its

failure to adequately identify trade secret during discovery).

See also Ansvs, Inc. v. Computational Dynamics North, Case No.

09-CV-284-SM, 2009 WL 4403745 at *5 (D.N.H. Nov. 25, 2009)

(requiring, on motion for preliminary injunction, specificity in

identification of trade secrets). However, for pleading purposes

Ad-Tech has plausibly alleged the existence of trade secrets and,

thereby, has given Rapid adequate notice of the claim against it.

See Lincoln Park Sav. Bank v. Binetti, Case No. 10 CV 5083, 2011

WL 249461, at *2 (N.D. 111. Jan. 26, 2011) (where complaint "was

not a model of specificity," nevertheless finding under Iqbal

that it plausibly alleged trade secrets, noting that "[w]hile it

is not enough to point to broad areas of technology . . . trade

secrets need not be disclosed in detail in a complaint . . . for

the simple reason that such a requirement would result in public

disclosure of the purported trade secrets") (quotations and

citations omitted). See also Brocade Comm. Svs., Inc. v. A10

Networks, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-032428-LHK, 2011 WL 1044899, at *5

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2011) (finding complaint plausibly alleged

trade secrets under Iqbal's standards where it broadly alleged

defendant's misappropriation of plaintiff's "design of its

Serverlron and ADX products, related software including source

40 code, customer information, and employee information"); W.L. Gore

& Assocs. v. GI Dynamics, Inc., Case No. CV-10-8088-PHX-GMS, 2010

WL 5184254, at *25-27 (D. Ariz. Dec. 15, 2010) (finding trade

secret misappropriation claim adequately pled in light of Iqbal

where plaintiff alleged misappropriation of plaintiff's

"research, development, and market opportunities" and "product

design . . . patent portfolio, and future plans").

Finally, Ad-Tech unambiguously describes the circumstances

under which Rapid is alleged to have "disclose[d] or use[d]" the

trade secret, that is, for the manufacture of identical glue guns

in China. See Am. Cmpt. 5 37, Doc. 20, pg. 9 ("Rapid disclosed,

without express or implied consent by Ad-Tech, Ad-Tech's

information to competing manufacturers (e.g., in China)."). The

complaint also sets forth factual allegations showing that Rapid

"knew or had reason to know that [its] knowledge of the trade

secret was . . . acquire[d] under circumstances giving rise to a

duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use." RSA 350-B:l

11(b). The circumstances giving rise to Rapid's duty to maintain

secrecy are the confidential relationship between the parties and

the Agreement itself, both of which are specifically described in

the complaint.

41 Thus, Ad-Tech has pled sufficient facts to show that its

trade secret misappropriation claim under UTSA is plausible.

Rapid's motion to dismiss Ad-Tech's misappropriation claim for

failure to state a claim is denied.

B. Breach of Contract and Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

1. Breach of Contract

The complaint alleges that Rapid breached the contract by

(1) failing to buy the finished products from Ad-Tech; (2)

circumventing Ad-Tech as a supplier; (3) not paying Ad-Tech for

the engineering services it performed; and (4) using "false

pretexts to obtain [the] confidential information" contained in

the CAD files. Am. Cmpt. 525, Doc. No. 20, pg. 8.

Rapid challenges the facial plausibility of all four alleged

breaches. As to the first three. Rapid argues that the written

Agreement placed only one duty on Rapid: to buy "some" product

from Ad-Tech, which the complaint alleges Rapid did. Considering

"all the facts alleged" and their "cumulative effect," Ocasio-

Hernandez , 2011 WL 1228768, at *11 (emphasis in original), the

court finds that the complaint plausibly alleges that the

contract required Rapid to buy glue guns from Ad-Tech as its

exclusive supplier, and that Rapid's purchase of glue guns from a

42 different manufacturer — and that the consequent failure to meet

its purchase "requirements" from Ad-tech and failure to

compensate Ad-Tech for its efforts — constituted breaches of the

contract. (Whether the contract is susceptible to a different

construction (e.g., whether "some" is ambiguous) is an issue more

appropriately resolved following discovery and adequate

briefing.)

The complaint expressly alleges that the written Agreement

was not the entire contract between the parties, but rather,

"provided a framework for further discussions of final terms, and

to 'start a project' between Ad-Tech and Isaberg Rapid." Am.

Cmpt. 5 9, Doc. No. 20, pg. 4. Second, additional allegations

plausibly suggest, directly and by reasonable implication, that

the final, and actual, terms of the contract required Rapid to

compensate Ad-Tech's engineering and manufacturing efforts

through substantial, and exclusive, product orders from Rapid.

See Am. Cmpt. 9, 15-21 (alleging Ad-Tech was to be the

"exclusive supplier" to Rapid; describing Ad-Tech's extensive

investment of time and effort; alleging Ad-Tech shared

confidential information with Rapid "to facilitate mutual

cooperation in the manufacturing of the new line of hot melt glue

guns"). Accordingly, the complaint, read in a light favorable to

plaintiff, plausibly alleges breaches by Rapid in failing to buy

43 finished products from Ad-Tech, circumventing Ad-Tech as a

supplier, and failing to pay Ad-Tech for engineering services it

performed.

The complaint, read liberally, also plausibly alleges that

Rapid's acquisition of Ad-Tech's confidential information under

false pretenses constituted a breach of the contract. The

written Agreement expressly provides that the parties "shall have

an open and constructive technical co-operation regarding this

project." In support of that arrangement, the Agreement further

provides that confidential information exchanged by the parties

was to be kept confidential. While the Agreement envisions

mutual access to some confidential information, the agreement

does not contemplate one party's acquisition of the other's

confidential information unnecessary to contract performance, nor

does it contemplate acquisition of confidential information on

the basis of a material misrepresentation (as alleged) , nor does

it contemplate either disclosure of the other party's

confidential information or self-dealing.

At this early stage, the court finds that the complaint,

read liberally, states a claim for breach of contract.

44 2. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

The complaint alleges that Rapid breached its implied duty

of good faith and fair dealing by (1) failing to cooperate in

good faith on "discretionary matters" relating to final design of

the glue guns, and (2) acquiring Ad-Tech's confidential

information under "false pretexts." Rapid argues that these

allegations do not state a claim for breach of the implied duty

of good faith because no discretion, nor abuse of discretion, is

alleged.

Under New Hampshire law, there is "an implied covenant of

good faith performance where a contract 'by word or silence . . .

invest[s] one party with a degree of discretion in performance

sufficient to deprive another party of a substantial proportion

of the agreement's value.'" Ahrendt v. Granite Bank, 144 N.H.

308, 312-13 (1999) (quoting Centronics Corp. v. Genicom Corp.,

132 N.H. 133, 143 (1989)). In determining whether a party

breached such a covenant, the court must answer "four questions":

(1) Did the agreement "allow . . . or confer upon the defendant a

degree of discretion in performance tantamount to a power to

deprive the plaintiff of a substantial proportion of the

agreement's value?"; (2) Did the parties "intend to make a

legally enforceable contract?"; (3) Has "the defendant's exercise

of discretion exceeded the limits of reasonableness?"; and (4)

45 Did "the defendant's abuse of discretion cause the damage or

[did] the damage 'result from events beyond the control of either

party, against which the defendant has no obligation to protect

the plaintiff?'" .Id. (quotations and citations omitted). Here,

the parties dispute whether the complaint plausibly alleges

discretion in performance and abuse of that discretion.

A general allegation that the defendant had "discretion in

contract performance" must be supported by allegations of

specific fact. See Lowry v. Cabletron Svs., 973 F. Supp. 77, 84

(D.N.H. 1997) (dismissing claim for breach of implied duty of

good faith in performance where plaintiff "fail[ed] to allege

facts to support the conclusion that defendant had such

discretion"). Where discretion is alleged, its abuse is measured

by "the purpose of the agreement against which the reasonableness

of the complaining party's expectations may be measured."

Ahrendt, 144 N.H. at 313 (quotation omitted).

Here, with respect to the allegation that the contract gave

Rapid discretion in matters relating to the final design of the

glue guns, the court finds the specific facts alleged in the

complaint sufficient to move the allegation across the line from

conceivable to plausible. The complaint identifies, by way of

example, final design matters over which Rapid had discretion.

46 See Am. Cmpt. 5 26, Doc. 20, pg. 8 ("final design of components,

such as triggers," and "specifications for additional features").

The written Agreement supports the existence of such discretion.

See Am. Cmpt., Ex. A, 5 2, Doc. No. 20-1, pg. 4 ("Ad-Tech final

product specifications must be in accordance with Rapid's product

specification xxxx enclosure 2") .

The complaint also plausibly alleges that Rapid abused its

discretion. The purpose of the contract — against which the

reasonableness of Rapid's conduct is to be measured — was the

redesign and manufacture of glue guns, for which Ad-Tech would

receive compensation through exclusive sales of the manufactured

products to Rapid. Rapid's alleged failure to cooperate in

matters of final design is alleged to be an abuse of discretion

because it frustrated the very purpose of the contract. Indeed,

the complaint alleges that outcome specifically: "Rapid's failure

to cooperate in good faith . . . adversely affected the ability

of Ad-Tech to provide products under the Agreement at competitive

prices." Am. Cmpt. 28-29, Doc. No. 20, pgs. 8-9. The

complaint, therefore, plausibly alleges that Rapid had discretion

in matters relating to performance and that it abused that

discretion by failing to cooperate in good faith with respect to

final design approval, to deprive Ad-Tech of substantial

consideration.

47 Ad-Tech's allegation regarding Rapid's use of false

pretenses to acquire Ad-Tech's confidential information, however,

does not fare as well. The complaint contains no allegations to

link the false pretenses to some discretion conferred on Rapid by

the contract. Ad-Tech's only rebuttal to this deficiency is to

ask the court to deem incorporated into the complaint the facts

averred in the Melendy declaration. The court declines to do so.

The complaint plausibly states a claim for breach by Rapid

of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing with respect to

matters involving the final design of the glue guns, but fails to

allege such breach with respect to Rapid's acquisition and

alleged misuse of the confidential information.

Failure To Plead Fraud With Particularity Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) requires that a party alleging fraud

"must state with particularity the circumstances constituting

fraud." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). "Malice, intent, knowledge, and

other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally."

Id. The Court of Appeals has interpreted Rule 9 (b) to require

that the complaint "allege at minimum the identity of the person

who made the fraudulent statement, the time, place, and content

of the misrepresentation, the resulting injury, and the method by

48 which the misrepresentation was communicated." Clearview

Software Int'l Inc. v. Ware, Case No. 07-cv-405-JL, 2009 WL

2151017, at *1, n .3 (D.N.H. July 15, 2000).

Here, the amended complaint alleges that "[t]he Isaberg

Rapid engineer responsible for this program" requested

confidential information from an Ad-Tech employee "via telephone"

on "September 15, 2005." Am. Cmpt. 5 20, Doc. No. 20, pg. 6. It

is alleged that the reason offered by the engineer for Rapid's

request was false. .Id. The complaint additionally alleges that

"key management employees" made false representations as to why

Rapid needed the confidential information, and that "[t]he real

reason [for the request] . . . was to enable Rapid to eliminate

Ad-Tech from the supply and distribution chain for the new line

of hot melt glue guns." Am. Cmpt. 5 43, Doc. No. 20, pgs. 10-11.

Rapid made the misrepresentations, it is alleged, "intentionally

in order to induce Ad-Tech into providing its confidential

information." Am. Cmpt. 5 44, Doc. No. 20, pg. 11.

The fraud claim is sufficient under Rule 9 (b) in some

respects, and suspect in others. The complaint clearly alleges

the content and context of the misrepresentations, and, with

respect to Rapid's engineer, it alleges the date and mode of the

communication. The complaint does not identify by name or

49 position the "key management employees" who also allegedly made

misrepresentations, nor the dates and modes of communication.

Taking the complaint as a whole, however, it is apparent that

plaintiff is alleging that defendant misrepresented a material

fact — its need for technical data to satisfy European regulatory

requirements — when in reality it was seeking the information for

the improper purpose of converting it to its own use, in

violation of its contractual and confidentiality obligations.

Rapid's motion to dismiss Count IV of the Amended Complaint

for failure to plead fraud with the requisite particularity, as

required by Rule 9(b), is denied.

Conclusion

Rapid's motion to dismiss (document no. 2_3) is granted in

part and denied in part. The court denies the motion to the

extent it seeks dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, and

on grounds of forum non conveniens. The motion is granted in

part and denied in part on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) grounds, as

set out above.

50 SO ORDERED.

McAuliffe ''Chief Judge

May 26, 2011

cc: Daniel G. Smith, Esq. Conrad J. Clark, Esq. Todd R. Dickinson, Esq. Alexandra M. Gorman, Esq. Matthew J. Matule, Esq.