Proofpoint, Inc. v. Vade Secure, Incorporated

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 18, 2023
• Docket: 3:19-cv-04238
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PROOFPOINT, INC., et al., Case No. 19-cv-04238-MMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 9 v. RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS MATTER OF LAW 10 VADE SECURE, INCORPORATED, et al., 11 Defendants.

13 14 Before the Court is plaintiffs' "Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law 15 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b)," filed February 24, 2023. Defendants have filed 16 opposition, to which plaintiffs have replied. Having read and considered the papers filed 17 in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court rules as follows.1 18 "Under Rule 50, a court should render judgment as a matter of law when a party 19 has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a 20 reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing 21 Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 149 (2000) (internal quotation and citation omitted). In 22 considering a motion under Rule 50, "the court must draw all reasonable inferences in 23 favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the 24 evidence." See id. at 150. 25 Here, plaintiffs argue they are entitled to judgment in their favor as to several 26 findings made by the jury. As to each challenged finding, however, the Court, having 27 1 "review[ed] the record as a whole," see id. at 151, concludes, as set forth below, a 2 || sufficient evidentiary basis for each such finding exists: 3 1. Sufficient evidence exists to support the jury's finding that plaintiffs’ Asserted 4 || Trade Secret No. 8 did not qualify as a protectable trade secret. (See Transcript of Trial 5 || Proceedings ("Trial Tr.") 731:20-733:13, 1007:20-1011:15, 1058:18-1062:25, 1431:9-24, 6 || 2153:2-2155:6; 2426:3-2428:13.) 7 2. Sufficient evidence exists to support the jury's finding that defendants did not 8 || misappropriate Asserted Trade Secret Nos. 17-20. (See Trial Tr. 1138:1-2 (Doc. No. 9 || 785-1 at 36-37 (82:9-12, 14-25)), 2098:21-25, 2105:6-2113:18, 2116:14-2118:7, 2121:17- 10 || 2122:15.) 11 3. Sufficient evidence exists to support the jury's finding that plaintiffs did not incur 12 || an actual loss as a result of the misappropriation and/or infringement the jury found had 5 13 || occurred. (See Trial Tr. 1681:11-1687:22, 2485:17-18 (Doc. No. 785-1 at 126 (202:25- 14 || 203:13, 203:21-22, 204:2-3)), 2492:23-24 (Doc. No. 785-1 at 135 (122:08-15)).) 8 15 4. Sufficient evidence exists to support the jury's finding that plaintiffs are entitled é 16 to $13,495,659 as compensation for unjust enrichment, rather than $46,579,461, the sum G 17 || plaintiffs had requested. Specifically, sufficient evidence exists to support a finding that 5 18 || defendants’ post-Zenika sales were not the result of misappropriation or infringement. 19 || (See Trial Tr. 802:7-21, 1833:4-8, 2123:17-2128:5.) 20 Accordingly, plaintiffs’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is hereby 21 || DENIED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 || Dated: April 18, 2023 Heber ll at 25 Uni d States District Judge 26 27 28