Revolution Retail Systems, LLC v. Sentinel Technologies, Inc.
This text of Revolution Retail Systems, LLC v. Sentinel Technologies, Inc. (Revolution Retail Systems, LLC v. Sentinel Technologies, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
REVOLUTION RETAIL SYSTEMS, LLC, a ) Delaware Limited Liability Company, as ) successor to New Tidel Revolution, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, ) C.A. No. 10605-VCP ) v. ) ) SENTINEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware ) corporation, TIDEL, INC., a Delaware ) corporation, and TIDEL ENGINEERING, LP, a ) Texas Limited Partnership, ) ) Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs. ) )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Date Submitted: August 20, 2015 Date Decided: October 30, 2015
Michael W. McDermott, Esq., David B. Anthony, Esq., BERGER HARRIS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Charles E. Phipps, Esq., LOCKE LORD LLP, Dallas, Texas; Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant.
C. Malcolm Cochran, Esq., Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esq., Steven J. Fineman, Esq., Christine D. Haynes, Esq., Selena E. Molina, Esq., RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.C., Wilmington, Delaware; Mark E. McKane, Esq., Christopher W. Keegan, Esq., Kevin K. Chang, Esq., KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, San Francisco, California; Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
PARSONS, Vice Chancellor. The plaintiff and defendant entities in this breach of contract action are in the
business of manufacturing and selling cash management systems to retailers. Initially, a
group of investors owned only one of the defendants, but, seeing a business opportunity
to develop and sell a premium cash management system, they formed the plaintiff, a
Delaware limited liability company (“LLC”), as a subsidiary of one of the defendants to
pursue that opportunity without dragging down that defendant‟s revenues and taxing its
resources. When a financial buyer offered to buy both businesses, the investors declined
to sell the plaintiff subsidiary, but accepted an offer to purchase only the parent company.
The parties separated the parent and subsidiary and negotiated several contracts to govern
their collaborative relationship moving forward.
This action arises from the deterioration of that collaborative relationship into a
competitive one, in which the plaintiff alleges the competition occurred sooner than
contractual non-competition and non-solicitation provisions permitted. The plaintiff also
alleges various related breaches of confidentiality and licensing agreements for which
they seek both equitable and monetary relief. The defendants deny the plaintiff‟s claims
and assert counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that the parties‟ software license
agreement was perpetual in duration. Both parties seek legal fees and expenses under the
controlling Texas law.
I presided over a four-day trial. This Memorandum Opinion contains my post-trial
findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the plaintiff‟s breach of contract claims and
the defendants‟ various counterclaims. For the reasons stated herein, I conclude that the
defendants did breach an enforceable non-competition provision and, on that basis, grant
1 the plaintiff injunctive relief. I also conclude that the defendants misused the plaintiff‟s
confidential information in breach of various contracts and grant the plaintiff‟s request
for monetary damages. Further, I grant the defendants‟ request for a declaration that the
term of the parties‟ software license agreement is at least twenty years. Finally, I award
both parties a portion of attorneys‟ fees and expenses based on their respective successes
in this action, as permitted by Texas law.
I. BACKGROUND1
Around 1995, the Southland Corporation wholly owned Plaintiff Tidel
Engineering and 7-Eleven. Tidel Engineering‟s core product lines included timed-access
cash controllers (“TACC units”) and other miscellaneous equipment to support 7-Eleven
stores. Southland divested its assets when its chairman died, and Tidel Engineering put
its cash security business up for auction. Tidel Engineering‟s cash security business
comprised three legacy TACC units and the Sentinel, Tidel Engineering‟s first-generation
Smart Safe unit.
A Smart Safe is a cash management system with a note validator on the front of it.
Like a vending machine, a note validator accepts a note and accounts for it, registers it,
and puts it into a depository box. In retail stores, a Smart Safe typically sits at the point
of purchase underneath the registers. Notes, either one at a time or in bulk, are fed into
1 Citations to testimony presented at trial are in the form “Tr. # (X)” with “X” representing the surname of the speaker, if not clear from the text. Exhibits are cited as “JX #.” After being identified initially, individuals are referenced herein by their surnames without regard to formal titles such as “Dr.” No disrespect is intended.
2 the Smart Safe, which accounts for them electronically. At the end of the day, the retailer
no longer pulls out money to count by hand. The Smart Safe stacks cash in a deposit
cassette. Smart Safes also accept various media such as checks, stored in a secure area
with cassettes, that an armored car will pick up, and coupons.
The armored car industry started the Smart Safe business. An armored car
company monitors remotely how much money a specific customer has deposited in its
Smart Safe‟s cassette. Instead of scheduling pickup several days a week, the armored car
came only when the company saw the cassette almost was filled to capacity. Remote
monitoring facilitated supplying retailers with provisional credit. Rather than a retailer
waiting two or three days between scheduled pickups to receive credit for the cash in its
safe, the retailer would receive credit every day for the cash deposited the day before.
In or around 2002, Group 4 Securicor (“G4S”), one of the largest cash in transit
and security companies in the world, announced a request for quotations to provide Smart
Safes internationally. Tidel Engineering bid on and won the contract. In or around 2006,
Tidel Engineering still had only four products. After Laurus Capital backed Tidel
Engineering‟s CEO Mark Levenick and CFO Jeff Galgano in a management-led buyout,
Tidel Engineering re-engineered the Sentinel to appeal to the armored car companies. In
or around 2007, however, G4S asked Tidel Engineering to build a high-speed coin
recycler for European coins and offered to pay for its development. Tidel Engineering
agreed and produced the first prototypes in June or July of 2008.
Having seen the European coin recycler project, Tidel Engineering‟s capital
partners decided to move forward with developing a full coin and note recycler—the
3 complete cash room solution—for the U.S. market. The business advantage of a recycler
is that it enables a retailer to automate its cash room and reduce labor hours. Retailers
with no Smart Safe typically hand-count tills in the morning for use in registers during
the day. All day, money goes between the registers and the safe, which has to be opened
and money accounted for manually. At the end of the day, drawers come back from the
registers to be counted manually and reconciled for shortages. Then, in a cash room, end-
of-day deposits are counted. The process starts over the next day.
Smart Safes with one-way note validators automate some of the process. Deposit
cassettes store notes until someone removes them from the machine. A note recycler,
however, accepts notes at a higher speed and not only validates them but also separates
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
REVOLUTION RETAIL SYSTEMS, LLC, a ) Delaware Limited Liability Company, as ) successor to New Tidel Revolution, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, ) C.A. No. 10605-VCP ) v. ) ) SENTINEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware ) corporation, TIDEL, INC., a Delaware ) corporation, and TIDEL ENGINEERING, LP, a ) Texas Limited Partnership, ) ) Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs. ) )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Date Submitted: August 20, 2015 Date Decided: October 30, 2015
Michael W. McDermott, Esq., David B. Anthony, Esq., BERGER HARRIS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Charles E. Phipps, Esq., LOCKE LORD LLP, Dallas, Texas; Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant.
C. Malcolm Cochran, Esq., Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esq., Steven J. Fineman, Esq., Christine D. Haynes, Esq., Selena E. Molina, Esq., RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.C., Wilmington, Delaware; Mark E. McKane, Esq., Christopher W. Keegan, Esq., Kevin K. Chang, Esq., KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, San Francisco, California; Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
PARSONS, Vice Chancellor. The plaintiff and defendant entities in this breach of contract action are in the
business of manufacturing and selling cash management systems to retailers. Initially, a
group of investors owned only one of the defendants, but, seeing a business opportunity
to develop and sell a premium cash management system, they formed the plaintiff, a
Delaware limited liability company (“LLC”), as a subsidiary of one of the defendants to
pursue that opportunity without dragging down that defendant‟s revenues and taxing its
resources. When a financial buyer offered to buy both businesses, the investors declined
to sell the plaintiff subsidiary, but accepted an offer to purchase only the parent company.
The parties separated the parent and subsidiary and negotiated several contracts to govern
their collaborative relationship moving forward.
This action arises from the deterioration of that collaborative relationship into a
competitive one, in which the plaintiff alleges the competition occurred sooner than
contractual non-competition and non-solicitation provisions permitted. The plaintiff also
alleges various related breaches of confidentiality and licensing agreements for which
they seek both equitable and monetary relief. The defendants deny the plaintiff‟s claims
and assert counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that the parties‟ software license
agreement was perpetual in duration. Both parties seek legal fees and expenses under the
controlling Texas law.
I presided over a four-day trial. This Memorandum Opinion contains my post-trial
findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the plaintiff‟s breach of contract claims and
the defendants‟ various counterclaims. For the reasons stated herein, I conclude that the
defendants did breach an enforceable non-competition provision and, on that basis, grant
1 the plaintiff injunctive relief. I also conclude that the defendants misused the plaintiff‟s
confidential information in breach of various contracts and grant the plaintiff‟s request
for monetary damages. Further, I grant the defendants‟ request for a declaration that the
term of the parties‟ software license agreement is at least twenty years. Finally, I award
both parties a portion of attorneys‟ fees and expenses based on their respective successes
in this action, as permitted by Texas law.
I. BACKGROUND1
Around 1995, the Southland Corporation wholly owned Plaintiff Tidel
Engineering and 7-Eleven. Tidel Engineering‟s core product lines included timed-access
cash controllers (“TACC units”) and other miscellaneous equipment to support 7-Eleven
stores. Southland divested its assets when its chairman died, and Tidel Engineering put
its cash security business up for auction. Tidel Engineering‟s cash security business
comprised three legacy TACC units and the Sentinel, Tidel Engineering‟s first-generation
Smart Safe unit.
A Smart Safe is a cash management system with a note validator on the front of it.
Like a vending machine, a note validator accepts a note and accounts for it, registers it,
and puts it into a depository box. In retail stores, a Smart Safe typically sits at the point
of purchase underneath the registers. Notes, either one at a time or in bulk, are fed into
1 Citations to testimony presented at trial are in the form “Tr. # (X)” with “X” representing the surname of the speaker, if not clear from the text. Exhibits are cited as “JX #.” After being identified initially, individuals are referenced herein by their surnames without regard to formal titles such as “Dr.” No disrespect is intended.
2 the Smart Safe, which accounts for them electronically. At the end of the day, the retailer
no longer pulls out money to count by hand. The Smart Safe stacks cash in a deposit
cassette. Smart Safes also accept various media such as checks, stored in a secure area
with cassettes, that an armored car will pick up, and coupons.
The armored car industry started the Smart Safe business. An armored car
company monitors remotely how much money a specific customer has deposited in its
Smart Safe‟s cassette. Instead of scheduling pickup several days a week, the armored car
came only when the company saw the cassette almost was filled to capacity. Remote
monitoring facilitated supplying retailers with provisional credit. Rather than a retailer
waiting two or three days between scheduled pickups to receive credit for the cash in its
safe, the retailer would receive credit every day for the cash deposited the day before.
In or around 2002, Group 4 Securicor (“G4S”), one of the largest cash in transit
and security companies in the world, announced a request for quotations to provide Smart
Safes internationally. Tidel Engineering bid on and won the contract. In or around 2006,
Tidel Engineering still had only four products. After Laurus Capital backed Tidel
Engineering‟s CEO Mark Levenick and CFO Jeff Galgano in a management-led buyout,
Tidel Engineering re-engineered the Sentinel to appeal to the armored car companies. In
or around 2007, however, G4S asked Tidel Engineering to build a high-speed coin
recycler for European coins and offered to pay for its development. Tidel Engineering
agreed and produced the first prototypes in June or July of 2008.
Having seen the European coin recycler project, Tidel Engineering‟s capital
partners decided to move forward with developing a full coin and note recycler—the
3 complete cash room solution—for the U.S. market. The business advantage of a recycler
is that it enables a retailer to automate its cash room and reduce labor hours. Retailers
with no Smart Safe typically hand-count tills in the morning for use in registers during
the day. All day, money goes between the registers and the safe, which has to be opened
and money accounted for manually. At the end of the day, drawers come back from the
registers to be counted manually and reconciled for shortages. Then, in a cash room, end-
of-day deposits are counted. The process starts over the next day.
Smart Safes with one-way note validators automate some of the process. Deposit
cassettes store notes until someone removes them from the machine. A note recycler,
however, accepts notes at a higher speed and not only validates them but also separates
and stores them in either drums or cassettes, which allows the notes to be brought back
out upon request or left in a designated deposit cassette that remains one-way.
To automate the process fully, Tidel Engineering developed a full coin and note
recycler to check out cash drawers automatically. A retailer asks the machine for a start-
of-day till and the machine dispenses it in a matter of seconds with absolute precision. At
the end of the day, the retailer inserts the money back into the machine and the machine
accepts it, authenticates it, and stages it for the next person, thus eliminating all manual
counting. Tidel Engineering‟s capital investors did not want to drain the company‟s
resources and earnings to develop this higher-priced product, so they formed and funded
independently Tidel Revolution, LLC in or around May 2009 to develop the Revolution
recycler separately. The two companies, however, operated seamlessly until 2011.
4 A. The Parties and Relevant Non-Parties
Defendants Sentinel Technologies, Inc. (“Sentinel”) and Tidel, Inc., both
Delaware corporations, are holding companies of Defendant Tidel Engineering, L.P.
(“Tidel Engineering”), a Texas limited partnership (“LP”) (together with Sentinel and
Tidel, Inc., “Tidel”) and cash management system retailer with more than thirty years of
experience in the industry. The Tidel entities are also Counterclaim Plaintiffs in this
action. Tidel formed Tidel Revolution as a subsidiary in May 2009. Until 2011, Tidel
and Tidel Revolution shared a board, management, and operations, administrative, and
engineering personnel. In November 2011, Tidel and Tidel Revolution formally were
separated into two entities, and Tidel Revolution became New Tidel Revolution, LLC.
Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, Revolution Retail Systems, LLC
(“Revolution”), is the successor entity to New Tidel Revolution and, like Tidel, is a cash
management system retailer.
Mark Levenick is the Chairman and CEO of Revolution. He joined Tidel
Engineering in 1988 as a sales trainee, became president in 1993, and CEO in 1994.
Levenick was also Tidel Revolution‟s first CEO and continued serving both companies in
that capacity after their separation in 2011. Tidel discharged Levenick in late 2013.
Gary Landry replaced Levenick as Tidel‟s CEO and still serves in that role.
Landry joined Tidel‟s Board in January 2013. Before joining Tidel, Landry worked for
Brinks, an armored car company, for twenty-three years, including as Executive Vice
President of International Business for the last several years.
5 Alex Beregovsky worked for Vector Capital, a private equity firm from San
Francisco specialized in investing in middle market technology companies. He initiated a
transaction in which Vector acquired Tidel in 2011. Beregovsky joined the Tidel Board
after that transaction closed.
Graham Partners acquired Tidel from Vector in February 2015.
B. Facts
1. Vector agrees to buy Tidel, but not Revolution
In 2011, Vector proposed a term sheet to acquire Tidel and its subsidiary,
Revolution. Tidel‟s majority stockholder, however, had high expectations for
Revolution‟s business prospects, and Tidel‟s Board rejected Vector‟s offer. Vector later
offered to acquire only Tidel, which Tidel accepted. Tidel and Revolution formally were
separated into two independent entities as part of that transaction, with Tidel‟s former
majority stockholder retaining majority control of Revolution. On November 2, 2011,
the Tidel and Revolution parties executed a series of agreements governing their
relationship moving forward. These agreements included the Securities Purchase
Agreement, the Manufacturing Services Agreement (the “Manufacturing Agreement”),
the Cross License Agreement, and the Administrative Services Agreement (the “Services
Agreement”).
Section 7.9 of the Securities Purchase Agreement contains Non-Competition and
Non-Solicitation provisions delineating two otherwise competitive businesses in which
Tidel and Revolution each would operate, respectively and exclusively, until the end of a
6 Non-Competition Period.2 The Non-Competition Period was to last through the later of:
(1) the date that was three years from the Securities Purchase Agreement‟s Closing
Date—i.e., November 2, 2014; or (2) the termination of the Manufacturing Agreement by
its terms.3 Through Section 7.9, the parties exchanged broad reciprocal covenants not to
compete in each other‟s specifically delineated and defined “Competitive Business.”
Revolution promised Tidel in Section 7.9(a) that, during the Non-Competition Period, it
would not “directly or indirectly . . . engage in or propose to engage in the business of
developing, marketing, manufacturing or selling equipment or cash management systems
or equipment that have a selling price of less than $35,000 per unit . . . ,” defined as a
“Sentinel Competitive Business.”4 By a corresponding covenant in Section 7.9(c), Tidel
promised that it would not “directly or indirectly . . . engage in or propose to engage in
the business of developing, marketing or manufacturing systems that have a selling price
of $35,000 or more per unit . . . ,” defined as a “Revolution Competitive Business.”5
After making the permitted calculations and adjustments for inflation as of November
2014, a “Revolution Competitive Business” would comprise cash management systems
developed, marketed, or manufactured by Tidel to have a selling price of $37,030.25 (the
“Inflation Adjusted Price Line”) or more.
2 JX 3. 3 See infra note 9. 4 JX 3. 5 Id. § 7.9(c).
7 Similar to the Non-Competition provisions, the parties also exchanged reciprocal
covenants not to, “directly or indirectly,” “call on” or “solicit” each other‟s customers
during the Non-Competition Period in connection with each other‟s Competitive
Business.6
The Manufacturing Agreement set forth the terms under which Tidel would
continue manufacturing Revolution‟s products and permitted the parties to terminate the
agreement by its terms. Revolution had certain exclusive ownership rights in and to
intellectual property, including software and Solidworks drawings, used in the systems
assembled under the Manufacturing Agreement and Services Agreement. 7 The
Manufacturing Agreement restricted each party‟s use of the other‟s “Confidential
Information,” which each party agreed not to use except “as necessary to perform its
obligations and exercise its rights under this Agreement . . . .”8 The Manufacturing
Agreement‟s “term” is prescribed in Section 11 of that agreement.9 The parties‟
obligations respecting Confidential Information expressly survived the end of the term,
and each agreed that at the end of the term it would “promptly deliver” “all copies” of
“any of the other party‟s proprietary information in its possession, including but not
6 Id. § 7.9(d). 7 JX 4, 5. 8 JX 4 § 9(a); JX 5 § 6. 9 “The term of this [Manufacturing] Agreement shall commence as of the date hereof and shall continue until the fifth (5th) anniversary of the date hereof unless earlier terminated pursuant to the terms of this Section 11.” JX 4 § 11(a).
8 limited to, Confidential Information . . . .”10 On February 15, 2014, pursuant to the terms
of the Manufacturing Agreement, Tidel provided Revolution one year advance notice that
it was terminating that agreement and the corresponding Non-Competition Period on
February 15, 2015.11
The Services Agreement set forth the terms under which Sentinel (through Tidel)
would provide certain administrative services to Revolution in part by sharing employees.
To that end, Exhibit A to the Services Agreement set forth the names of Sentinel
employees and a percentage of time that each employee would allocate to Sentinel for
2012 and 2013.12 The Services Agreement contained mutual obligations relating to
Confidential Information that were similar to those in the Manufacturing Agreement and
survived the Services Agreement‟s September 30, 2013 expiration.13
The Cross License Agreement addressed each party‟s ability to use certain
intellectual property rights owned by Revolution and used by Tidel in the ordinary course
of its business as of November 2, 2011, defined and referred to as “Other Licensed
Intellectual Property.”14 On September 5, 2014, however, Revolution and Tidel executed
10 JX 4 § 11. 11 Defs.‟ Answer to First Am. Verified Compl. & Am. Counterclaim ¶ 9, Docket Item (“D.I.”) 74. 12 See JX 5, Exh. A (including Levenick, Flynt Moreland, and CFO Galgano, among others). For the avoidance of doubt, Exhibit B set forth the names of individuals whose time was allocated to Revolution entirely. JX 5, Exh. B. 13 JX 5, §§ 3, 6. 14 JX 6. 9 a “release” in which the parties agreed, among other things, that the term Other Licensed
Intellectual Property, as used in the Cross License Agreement, included “certain design,
development and engineering documents and models that are marked or otherwise
designated as Tidel documents” that “[Revolution] and Tidel share . . . .”15
2. The Software License Agreement enables collaboration
Vector continued to operate Tidel and Revolution with overlapping boards,
officers, and employees, including CEO Levenick and CFO Galgano, during 2012 and
2013. Levenick and Moreland, Tidel‟s Executive Vice President of Engineering and IT,
conceived of the Series 5 cash management system, a predecessor to the R50 that is at the
center of this dispute, in either late 2012 or early 2013. The Inflation Adjusted Price Line
was in effect at that time, and as long as Tidel and Revolution were subject to it, neither
could fully meet the business requirements of certain customers who: (1) needed cash
management systems both above and below the price line; and (2) desired a common
interface for their cash management systems. The parties, through Levenick and
Moreland, identified a need to work together to provide a solution for those customers or
risk losing them to a competitor who could.16 Thus, the parties executed the Software
and Cross License Agreement in March 2013 (the “Software License Agreement”) to
15 DX 100 § 1 (and first WHEREAS); JX 6 § 2.3. 16 The idea for a software license arose from the desire for Revolution and Tidel to get 100% of the sales to Wal-Mart and Walgreens, with Revolution getting a “90/10” split of Wal-Mart and Tidel getting a “90/10” split of Walgreens. Tr. 67- 68, 73, 74 (Levenick).
10 enable Tidel to sell products below the price line using the same user interface software
that Revolution installed in products it sold above the price line. Levenick and Landry
described the Software License Agreement, executed on March 29, 2013, as part of the
parties‟ collaborative business relationship.
3. Tidel and Revolution’s relationship sours
The Services Agreement expired by its terms on September 30, 2013. Beregovsky
and Tidel confirmed with Revolution that the “[t]wo years are up . . . ,” the Services
Agreement was completed, and Tidel had “compli[ed] [with] all Revolution divestiture
elements.”17 Later that month, Levenick and Moreland agreed on the coin sorter
capacities necessary on Tidel‟s Series 5 to get Walgreens‟ business below the price line.18
Levenick wrote to Fujitsu, a vendor, to request help with targeting Tidel‟s Series 5 at a
“mid-tier” retail market, explaining Tidel and Revolution‟s price line collaboration and
how the software license fits into it.19
On November 11, 2013, Levenick made a presentation regarding the proposed
Series 5 specifications, functionality, and “$35k” price for approval by Tidel‟s Board.20
17 PX 57; Tr. 746 (Galgano). 18 DX 47-49. 19 DX 54 (Levenick asking Fujitsu for a price reduction on its 750 recycling platform for Tidel‟s use in a recycler for “mid-tier” retail customers like Whole Foods, Wal-Mart, and Walgreens); Tr. 80-83 (Levenick explaining his request for Fujitsu to reduce the price of its 750 model from $15,000 to $11,000); DX 51 (Levenick informing Beregovsky that he had “been hammering Fujitsu *HARD* for pricing reductions on their recyclers which we may use in the Series 5 system”). 20 DX 52, 55. 11 Thus, the Series 5 would target a market with a higher price point than Tidel‟s Smart
Safes, which were priced around $5,000.21 Several days later, Beregovsky, Landry,
Galgano and Darren Taylor, Tidel‟s Executive Vice President of Global Business
Development—without then-CEO Levenick—discussed a Bank of America/G4S
opportunity for “thousands” of Series 5 sales, agreed to accelerate the development of
two different versions of the Series 5—a “mid next year” version at approximately 30%
gross margins and a “further version” with a new coin sorter at approximately 40% gross
margins, complained about the $36,000 “sales price” restriction, and agreed upon the
need to negotiate raising the price line to “get much higher margins.”22 In that same
conversation, Taylor suggested that Tidel should leverage Revolution‟s dependence on
their manufacturing relationship to negotiate an increase in the price line.23 Within a
month, Beregovsky and Tidel replaced Levenick as CEO with Landry, and Revolution‟s
Board replaced Levenick with Mike Hudson, Revolution‟s former General Manager.24
Later, Beregovsky directed Tidel‟s management to find a way to “get much higher
margins . . . ,” because “[w]hen we go and sell Tidel, we will obviously tout our high-end
21 Tr. 759 (Landry). 22 PX 62 at 3 (confirming that the differences between the two versions related primarily to the coin sorter and note recycler). 23 Id. at 2. 24 Tr. 87, 89-90 (Levenick); JX 5, Exh. B.
12 product and its growth potential. However, if that product is the lowest margin product
in our line-up, it detracts a lot from the message.”25
On January 28, 2014, Tidel and Revolution met at Tidel‟s invitation, and Taylor,
Landry, and Moreland requested: (1) Revolution‟s consent to use Revolution‟s “coin
sorter” intellectual property for a Series 5 “pilot” “whilst [they] develop [their] final
Series 5 product”; and (2) an increase in the price line to $42,500 to achieve the margins
normally expected from a product.26 The parties met again on February 14, 2014 and
Tidel renewed its request for Revolution‟s support in commencing the proposed product
development, but Revolution declined. Immediately thereafter, Tidel canceled the
Manufacturing Agreement—effective, by its terms, February 15, 2015. According to
Landry, Tidel terminated the Manufacturing Agreement in part because of its small
margins and the disruption it caused to Tidel‟s core business. 27 Tidel earned a profit
margin of 7% on the contract manufacturing service that it performed exclusively for
Revolution, as opposed to a higher average profit margin on other products.28 The
contract was likely to be both a drain and a distraction: if Revolution became successful
25 PX 62. According to Landry, Beregovsky directed his communication to Taylor and was “always banging on [Tidel] about gross margins.” Tr. 445, 499 (explaining that Beregovsky and Vector “had a false sense of what gross margins could be . . . [and] wanted to see more money quick,” and “were used to 80 percent gross margin businesses . . .”). 26 DX 63; Tr. 499 (Landry). 27 Tr. 849 (Taylor). 28 Tr. 428 (Landry).
13 and required Tidel to manufacture many units, it would drain Tidel‟s resources; if
Revolution was not successful, the contract still would distract Tidel from its core
business with wider profit margins.29
4. Tidel prepares itself to be sold and tests the R50 product market
On March 10, 2014, Tidel began referencing the Series 5 as the “R50” when
providing preliminary technical specifications. Those specifications included Tidel‟s
plan to “[u]se the Glory Mach 6” coin sorter, which processes coins twice as fast as the
Glory Mach 3.30 Tidel continued, however, to refer to the R50 as the Series 5 for several
months, as described below. On May 13, 2014, Tidel‟s Board voted to approve a
“company sale process” with a Series 5 plan indicating a “$35k-$45k price range.”31
Later that month, Taylor sought Moreland‟s assistance in pricing the Series 5 assuming
the slower Glory Mach 3 coin sorter.32 Tidel hired Harris Williams, an investment bank,
to help prepare and market Tidel for sale.33 Harris Williams conducted a market study
and prepared several business plans, including a Series 5 business plan, which
Defendants referred to as sell-side documents.34
29 Tr. 429 (Landry); Tr. 850 (Taylor). 30 DX 75 (Glory Mach 6 processes 3,000 coins per minute); DX 85 (Glory Mach 3 processes 1,500 coins per minute) 31 DX 81. 32 PX 89. 33 Tr. 450 (Landry). 34 Tr. 451-52.
14 In June and July 2014, Galgano, Taylor, and Landry began communicating about
achieving higher gross margins for the Series 5 with “new pricing.”35 Taylor wrote, for
example: “It would be interesting to see what the higher price would be . . . with a Mach
6 [coin sorter and] . . . [s]tandardization across all coin lines.”36 Taylor continued: “I
think we could get a higher price maybe? I can ask G4S and Armaguard their thoughts
on a higher price for higher spec . . . .”37 Specifically, on June 9, 2014, Taylor contacted
one of Brink‟s customers in the United States regarding a Series 5 sales opportunity and
advised them that “[n]ote and coin recycling will be $40k.”38 On June 19, 2014, Taylor
confirmed that pricing for the Series 5 would be $40,000 in FY15 and $41,875 in FY16
and beyond.39 Then, in a “Tidel Series 5 Business Draft Plan-Draft Version x-05” dated
June 27, 2014, Tidel indicated the Series 5 will use a “Mach 3 Coin Sorter,” have a “unit
MSRP of $40k,” and have “planned MSRP increases to $41,875.”40
On July 21, 2014, Taylor and Landry discussed new gross margins “if we go to
Mach 6, with new pricing,” and Taylor proposed a Series 5 with a “higher price for a
35 DX 90. 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 JX 15. 39 JX 16. 40 PX 94.
15 higher spec . . .” using a “Mach 6 [coin sorter] over a Money Controls sorter . . . .”41 That
same day, Taylor relayed that information to G4S and Armaguard in separate emails,
saying, “[w]e have a working market price of $40k and are planning on using a Mach 3
sorter, if we switched to a Mach 6 to allow quicker fill time etc. and increased the price to
$42.5k(ish) what would your thoughts be?”42 Then, on July 24, Galgano told Harris
Williams that “[w]e need to change Series 5 price to $42500.”43 A sales strategy
overview titled “Tidel Strategy Overview-July 2014 Update” indicated that Tidel
“expect[ed] to sell the Series 5 for ~$42,500 and generate ~40% gross margin[s],” “[t]o
be released [January 2015],” and “to fill a void in market solutions between smart safes
and high end recyclers currently available.”44 Galgano and Taylor drafted the Tidel
Strategy Summary at the direction of Tidel‟s Board using a $42,500 price45 for two
purposes: (1) “commercialization” of the R50 by Tidel; and (2) use in connection with
the potential sale of the company.46 Tidel‟s Board, through Beregovsky, oversaw efforts
41 DX 90. 42 DX 91; PX 106-107. 43 JX 17. 44 PX 97; DX 92. A Series 5 business plan dated July 23, 2014 also states that, “[f]or Tidel, the Series 5 will move us upstream into . . . larger, higher cash volume retail formats with a more complex, higher price point solution.” DX 92 at TIDEL00012220. 45 Tr. 769 (Galgano); PX 123. 46 Tr. 771-72 (Galgano discussing dual purposes); see also Tr. 769 (Management prepared the plan “so a potential buyer coming in would see [they] had a proper business strategy and that it would help [them] sell the company . . . .”). 16 during July and August 2014 to draft a “Series 5 Business Plan” for the same two
purposes.47
Additional documents corroborated the move to a higher price point through the
fall. On August 18, 2014, a Series 5 business plan stated that the “Series 5 will be priced
at $42.5k” in 2015, the Mach 3 coin sorter will change to a Mach 6 coin sorter, and the
planned price will increase to $44,375 in 2016.48 Tidel also began using the R50 name
consistently around this time. On November 5, 2014, a Tidel Board deck indicated that
the R50 formally would launch January 2015 and “utilize . . . Mach 6” with a price
“TBD.”49 At the same time, however, a “Confidential Information Memorandum,”
which was one of Tidel‟s sell-side documents created for a potential transaction with
Graham Partners, described the R50 and promoted its business case using a $42,500 list
price.50 Taylor and Landry discussed similar pricing on November 13, 2014 when they
told one of Brinks‟s U.S. customers that the R50‟s price point is $42,50051 and told G4S
47 DX 116; Tr. 772, 765-66 (Galgano). The Series 5 Business Plan stated that it “will incorporate the Mach 6 Coin Sorter,” and “will be priced at an [average selling price] of $42.5k . . . .” DX 116. It further confirmed “discussions with several major retailers . . .” and a January 2015 “official launch” and provided average selling price projections beginning at $42,500 in 2015 and increasing to $44,375 throughout the period from 2016 to 2019. Id. 48 DX 97 at 4, 13; DX 116. 49 DX 104. 50 PX 7 at 25, 42. 51 DX 105.
17 it will be $41,250 per device.52 Later, on December 2, 2014, Taylor advised another
customer that the “National Pricing Quote” for “high volume” R50 purchases is $46,250
and that price “would be honored from the first unit.”53
Tidel debuted and promoted the R50 at trade shows beginning in January 2015.
On January 11, 2015, Tidel exhibited the R50 at the National Retail Federation trade
show.54 On January 27, 2015, Tidel listed the R50 at $46,000 in a price comparison with
competitor systems,55 and Taylor and Galgano quoted a “sale price” for G4S of
$41,250.56 Tidel exhibited the R50 again at the National Grocer‟s Association trade
show on February 9, 2015.57 On February 12, 2015, Galgano confirmed the R50 in
Tidel‟s budget “@ $42,500” “sale price.”58
The Non-Competition Period ended three days later on February 15, 2015.
52 JX 18. 53 DX 107-108. 54 DX 133 ¶ 34. 55 PX 185. 56 DX 117. 57 PX 199. 58 PX 192. Taylor admitted that he engaged in soliciting and marketing activities and sales efforts in connection with the R50 between June 2014 and February 15, 2015. Tr. 931. During those efforts, Taylor indicated, offered, quoted, or proposed to current and prospective customers of both Revolution and Tidel prices for the R50, variously, at: “mid $40‟s” (PX 163); $42,500 (DX 105); $41,250 (DX 117, JX 18); “region of $40k” (DX 83); $46,000 (PX 185); and $46,260 (DX 107).
18 5. Vector sells Tidel to Graham Partners
Graham Partners acquired all of Tidel‟s stock on February 26, 2015.59 Rob
Newbold, a managing principal at Graham Partners, explained that the main driver of
Graham Partners‟s investment in Tidel was its Smart Safe product lines, not the R50.60
According to Newbold, Graham Partners viewed Tidel‟s Series 3 as a lower-end version
of the Series 4 because it has fewer bells and whistles and sold for a lower price point.
Graham Partners viewed the R50 as a different type of machine because it was a cash
recycler, rather than a Smart Safe, and, as such, sold for a significantly higher price point.
Newbold expressed his understanding that the R50 was designed to sell to a different set
of customers, such as larger retailers than the fast food restaurants and convenience stores
that purchase Smart Safes. Further, Newbold understood that the distribution channels
for recyclers were different because the armored car companies like Brinks tended to be
the dominant path to market for Smart Safes, but not for recyclers.61
C. Procedural History
Revolution commenced this breach of contract action against Defendants, Sentinel
Technologies, Inc., Tidel, Inc., and Tidel Engineering L.P., on February 2, 2015, seeking
initially a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Revolution later
withdrew that application in deference to sworn affidavits submitted on behalf of
59 Tr. 535 (Landry). 60 Tr. 782. 61 Tr. 783-86.
19 Defendants by Landry, Galgano, and Moreland.62 Revolution‟s Amended Complaint
seeks injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief related to alleged breaches of five
contracts, including: (1) non-competition and non-solicitation provisions of the Securities
Purchase Agreement; and (2) confidentiality provisions in the Manufacturing Agreement,
Services Agreement, and Software License Agreement. Revolution also seeks a
declaration that the Software License Agreement terminated effective February 15, 2015.
Tidel filed its Answer to the First Amended Verified Complaint and Amended
Counterclaims on March 13, 2015, denying Revolution‟s claims. Through its Amended
Counterclaims, Tidel seeks a declaratory judgment that the license Revolution granted
Tidel in the Software License Agreement is perpetual, or, in the alternative, extends for at
least the length of the twenty-year license fee period.
After granting a motion to expedite, I conducted a four-day trial in this matter on
June 2 through 5, 2015. I heard post-trial arguments on August 20, 2015.
D. Parties’ Contentions
Revolution argues that the parties agreed to restrictive covenants that were
“necessary” and “reasonable in all respects” as part of a business-to-business sale of
securities in November 2011, which Tidel breached by: (1) engaging directly in the
business of developing and marketing the R50 during the Non-Competition Period at
selling prices above $37,030; and (2) engaging, or proposing to engage, directly and
62 Certain sworn statements in the Moreland affidavit were recanted during discovery and at trial.
20 indirectly, in the business of developing and marketing the R50 as a “turnkey” cash
management system priced above the price line.
Tidel denies that it ever breached the Securities Purchase Agreement by
developing or pricing the R50 to be sold above the price line. Instead, Tidel contends
that its representatives engaged in permitted price negotiations and preliminary market
research and that its efforts to sell itself, including production of certain sell-side
documents, did not violate the Securities Purchase Agreement. Alternatively, Tidel avers
that the non-competition provision of the Securities Purchase Agreement, as interpreted
by Revolution, is unreasonable and does not advance legitimate economic interests and,
therefore, is unenforceable.
Tidel also argues that the plain language of the Software License Agreement
establishes a perpetual and irrevocable license and that, to the extent extrinsic evidence is
admissible, it supports such an interpretation. Revolution disagrees, arguing that the
circumstances surrounding the Software License Agreement‟s formation, such as the
parties‟ then-collaborative relationship, establish that the duration of the license granted
was limited in scope by the term of the Manufacturing Agreement. Revolution contends,
therefore, that Tidel‟s license to use Revolution‟s software under the Software License
Agreement terminated on February 15, 2015.
Revolution also avers that several of the contracts between Revolution and Tidel
obligated Tidel not to use Revolution‟s confidential information other than for purposes
of fulfilling contractual obligations to Revolution. In that regard, Revolution emphasizes
that Moreland admitted at trial that Tidel used Revolution‟s confidential information,
21 including Revolution‟s software and Solidworks files, to develop the R50 and its
numerous parts, including the top cover, the coin return bin, various mounting brackets,
and the door stop.
Tidel contends that Revolution failed to satisfy its burden of proving the elements
of its misappropriation of confidential information claim because Tidel reserved the right
to use two of the four Solidworks models in question, a third was dropped from the final
production version, the shapes of the parts were driven primarily by functionality, and
Revolution offered no evidence quantifying the time or money that Tidel allegedly saved
by relying on the Solidworks models.
Finally, both parties dispute whether and to what extent the other is entitled to
shift its fees under Texas law.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
Plaintiffs, as well as Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, have the burden of proving each
element, including damages, of each of their causes of action against each Defendant or
Counterclaim-Defendant, as the case may be, by a preponderance of the evidence.63
Proof by a preponderance of the evidence means proof that something is more likely than
63 In re Genelux Corp., -- A.3d ---, 2015 WL 6393840, at *19 (Del. Ch. Oct. 22, 2015).
22 not.64 “By implication, the preponderance of the evidence standard also means that if the
evidence is in equipoise, Plaintiffs lose.”65
B. Tidel Breached the Securities Purchase Agreement
To prevail on a breach of contract claim, Revolution must prove: (1) the existence
of a contract; (2) the breach of an obligation imposed by that contract; and (3) damages
suffered as a result of that breach.66 Texas law is in accord.67 Delaware law adheres to
an objective theory of contracts, under which a court will not consider extrinsic evidence
“to interpret the intent of the parties, to vary the terms of the contract or to create an
ambiguity” when the relevant contract terms are unambiguous.68 Contract terms are not
64 Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Kirkland, 2010 WL 610725, at *13 (Del. Ch. Feb. 18, 2010) (quoting Del. Express Shuttle, Inc. v. Older, 2002 WL 31458243, at *17 (Del. Ch. Oct. 23, 2002)). 65 2009 Caiola Family Tr. v. PWA, LLC, 2015 WL 6007596, at *12 (Del. Ch. Oct. 14, 2015); OptimisCorp v. Waite, 2015 WL 5147038, at *55 (Del. Ch. Aug. 26, 2015). 66 VLIW Tech., LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 840 A.2d 606, 612 (Del. 2003) (citing Winston v. Mandor, 710 A.2d 835, 840 (Del. Ch. 1997)); Moore Bus. Forms, Inc. v. Cordant Hldgs. Corp., 1995 WL 662685, at *7 (Del. Ch. Nov. 2, 1995); Goodrich v. E.F. Hutton Gp., Inc., 542 A.2d 1200, 1203-04 (Del. Ch. 1988); WRIGHT & MILLER, 5 FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE CIVIL § 1235 (3d ed. 2015). 67 Sharifi v. Steen Auto., LLC, 370 S.W.3d 126, 140 (Tex. App. 2012) (“A successful breach of contract claim requires proof of the following elements: (1) a valid contract; (2) performance or tendered performance by the plaintiff; (3) breach of the contract by the defendant; and (4) damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the breach.” (citing Petras v. Criswell, 248 S.W.3d 471, 477 (Tex. App. 2008))). 68 Seidensticker v. Gasparilla Inn, Inc., 2007 WL 4054473, at *2 (Del. Ch. Nov. 8, 2007) (quoting Eagle Indus., Inc. v. DeVilbiss Health Care, Inc., 702 A.2d 1128, 23 ambiguous merely because the parties to the contract disagree on their meaning; 69 rather,
the Court “stand[s] in the shoes of an objectively reasonable third-party observer,” and
determines whether the contract language is unmistakably clear.70 The interpretation of a
contract is a question of law.71 If there is more than one reasonable construction of
contractual language, then the contract is ambiguous.72 Contractual language, however,
“is not ambiguous simply because the parties disagree on its meaning.”73 Instead, the
court will apply standard principles and canons of construction in construing the contract.
To be enforceable, Revolution must establish by clear and convincing evidence
that the non-competition provision at issue is: (1) reasonable in geographic scope and
temporal duration; (2) advances a legitimate economic interest; and (3) survives a balance
1232-33 (Del. 1997)). The Securities Purchase Agreement is governed by Delaware law. The other four relevant agreements are subject to Texas law. 69 Id. 70 Seidensticker, 2007 WL 4054473, at *2 (quoting Dittrick v. Chalfant, 2007 WL 1039548, at *4 (Del. Ch. Apr. 4, 2007)). 71 See, e.g., Seidensticker, 2007 WL 4054473, at *2 (citing HIFN, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 2007 WL 1309376, at *9 (Del. Ch. May 2, 2007)); see also AHS N.M. Hldgs., Inc. v. Healthsource, Inc., 2007 WL 431051, at *3 (Del. Ch. Feb. 2, 2007) (“Under general principles of contract law, interpretation of contractual language is purely a question of law.”). 72 VLIW Tech., 840 A.2d at 615 (“Ambiguity exists „when the provisions in controversy are reasonably or fairly susceptible of different interpretations.‟” (quoting Vanderbilt Income & Growth Assocs. v. Arvida/JMB Managers, Inc., 691 A.2d 609, 613 (Del. 1996))). 73 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 693 A.2d 1059, 1061 (Del. 1997).
24 of the equities.74 Tidel contends that Section 7.9 is unenforceable because the scope of
the non-compete provision is unreasonable and Revolution failed to prove otherwise by
clear and convincing evidence. A “less searching” inquiry into the enforceability of
restrictive covenants is contemplated, however, where, as here, sophisticated parties
contract to exchange securities.75 Further, Tidel affirmed that “the restrictions contained
in this Section 7.9 are reasonable in all respects (including, without limitation, with
respect to the subject matter, time period and geographical area) . . . ,” and “necessary” to
protect each parties‟ securities and goodwill.76 Each party represented that it “would not
have consummated the transactions . . . without the restrictions contained in this Section
7.9.”77 The evidence demonstrates, therefore, that Section 7.9 advances legitimate
economic interests of not only Revolution but also Tidel—i.e., “we, on the Tidel side,
were also concerned about Revolution competing with Tidel and about Revolution
having a lot of knowledge about Tidel‟s systems.”78 The corporate history of Revolution
74 Concord Steel, Inc. v. Wilm. Steel Processing Co., 2008 WL 902406, at *4 (Del. Ch. Apr. 3, 2008). 75 Kan-Di-Ki, LLC v. Suer, 2015 WL 4503210, at *19 (Del. Ch. July 22, 2015). 76 JX 3 § 7.9(i). 77 Id. 78 Tr. 717-18 (Beregovsky). Beregovsky‟s testimony comports with the actions of Tidel‟s owners both before and after Vector: in both contexts, the owners viewed the Smart Safe and recycler businesses as separate economically. For the owner who sold Tidel to Vector, that distinction justified forming Tidel Revolution to keep the recycler business separate from Tidel‟s Smart Safe business. For Graham Partners, the distinction justified purchasing Tidel based on its Smart Safe 25 alone justifies the price line: Revolution was formed to develop the higher-priced recycler
market without competing for Tidel‟s resources or dragging down its revenues, and
Tidel‟s prior owner negotiated the price line to protect its business decision to keep
Revolution instead of selling it to Vector. Thus, I conclude that Revolution proved by
clear and convincing evidence that the restrictive covenants at issue in Section 7.9 of the
Securities Purchase Agreement are enforceable.79
This Court has observed that where “[r]estrictive covenants are carefully
negotiated,” “our law requires that the unambiguous terms be given effect.”80 Where a
party negotiates for a contractual restriction, “it is stuck with that,” and “cannot, as an „oh
by the way,‟” claim that a broader or lesser restriction must apply. 81 Tidel failed to
advance a convincing argument that the relevant language in Section 7.9 is ambiguous.82
Thus, the parties are bound by the unambiguous negotiated language of the mutual
business alone and without regard for Vector‟s then-ongoing efforts to develop a recycler to capture that market. 79 I therefore reject Tidel‟s argument that balancing the equities “overwhelmingly” tilts in its favor because Revolution seeks only the “illegitimate benefit” of protecting itself from competition with Tidel through “a non-compete of infinite duration and boundless scope . . . .” Revolution seeks only to enforce the full scope and duration of the same mutually applicable competitive restrictions it honored to Tidel‟s benefit. 80 Allied Capital Corp. v. GC-Sun Hldgs., L.P., 910 A.2d 1020, 1024 (Del. Ch. 2006). 81 Id. at 1025. 82 In response to Revolution‟s arguments that certain of Tidel‟s acts during the Non- Competition Period constituted breaches, Tidel avers that its actions were permitted by Section 7.9. I address this argument infra.
26 covenants and provisions to which they agreed in November 2011. In Section 7.9(c) of
the Securities Purchase Agreement, Tidel covenants not to compete with Revolution
during the Non-Competition Period as follows:
During the Non-Competition Period, Buyer [Tidel] agrees, on behalf of itself and its Affiliates, including the Company [Sentinel] and its Subsidiaries, that it shall not, anywhere in the world, directly or indirectly, either for itself or for any other Person (i) own, operate, manage, control, engage in, participate in, invest in, permit its name to be used by, act as consultant or advisor to, render services for (alone or in association with any Person) or otherwise assist in any manner, any Person that engages in or owns, invests in, operates, manages or controls any venture or enterprise which directly or indirectly engages or proposes to engage in the business of developing, marketing, or manufacturing systems that have a selling price of $35,000 or more per unit (or a selling price in a foreign currency of $35,000 or more per unit based upon applicable foreign exchange rates) (which such selling price shall be adjusted throughout the Non- Competition Period for inflation in the applicable geographic location of the purchaser) (a “Revolution Competitive Business”).83
The competitive restrictions contained in Section 7.9 are expansive, evidencing an
attempt to cover every conceivable escape route for potentially competitive conduct.
These restrictions include far more than verifiable sales; they encompass almost all other
aspects of potentially competitive business activity in which Tidel and Revolution engage
regularly, i.e., designing, developing, marketing, and manufacturing cash management
systems. Accordingly, Section 7.9 prohibited both Tidel and Revolution from “the
business of developing, marketing or manufacturing systems” with a selling price above
83 JX 3 § 7.9(c).
27 or below, as the case may be, the Inflation Adjusted Price Line. This restriction applied
whether Tidel or Revolution was: engaging in such business; proposing to engage in it;
investing in it; undertaking it for itself or for any other person; otherwise assisting
investing in, or controlling, in any manner any person, venture, or enterprise engaging in
it or proposing to engage in it; calling on, soliciting or serving customers or other
business relations in connection with it, or interfering in any way with the relationships
involving customers or other business relations in connection with it.84 Though its
language is expansive, I conclude that an objectively reasonable third-party observer
would find that Section 7.9‟s meaning is plain: there can be no running start.
Tidel seeks to rewrite the covenant to prohibit only the actual sale of a cash
management system above the price line during the Non-Competition Period, but such a
construction relies upon an untenable use of the term “selling price” and creates an
absurd result that eviscerates most of Section 7.9‟s restrictions. Specifically, Tidel argues
that it could not have breached the non-competition provision because it never sold a
product with a “selling price” above the Inflation Adjusted Price Line during the Non-
Competition Period, and the Securities Purchase Agreement not only allowed Tidel to
sell itself but contemplated such a sale expressly. Instead, Tidel insists that it engaged in
price negotiations permitted by the Securities Purchase Agreement, assembled sell-side
documents advertising the sale of itself as a going concern on the assumption that its non-
84 See e.g., JX 3 § 7.9(a)-(d).
28 competition obligations expired by their terms upon a change of control, and solicited its
own customers with respect to the R50 only at a price below the price line.
Tidel‟s tortured interpretation of Section 7.9 ignores that provision‟s plain
language. For example, Tidel denies breaching Section 7.9, stating, “Revolution
presented no evidence that [Tidel] ever sold or agreed to sell the R50 above the [price
line] . . . ;”85 “Landry regularly sought and obtained board approval to continue the R50
project consistent with the agreed price restriction . . . ;”86 and Tidel “has [only] ever
agreed to sell the R50 . . . below the cap,” “has only ever formally quoted [a price of
$37,030] to prospective buyers for the R50 . . . ,” and “has [only] ever accepted purchase
orders for the R50 [at] $37,030.”87 Section 7.9, however, prohibits far more than selling,
agreeing to sell, quoting formally, and accepting purchase orders for products above the
price line. The provision also applies to far more conduct than mere board approval of
products above the price line.
Nonetheless, Tidel further contends that Section 7.9 permitted Taylor‟s
negotiations and market research regarding the R50 at prices above the price line.88
Instead, according to Tidel, Taylor provided “anticipated” and “indicated” price points
85 Defs.‟ Answering Br. 27. 86 Id. at 28. 87 Id. at 27-28. 88 Tidel argues that the inclusion of the modifier “selling” in Section 7.9(c) suggests that the use of other price quotations that would not qualify as “selling prices” is permitted under the agreement and that the agreement does not prohibit “market research” or internal, financial modeling.
29 for the R50 between $40,000 and $46,250 as a negotiating tactic, intending to pull
potential buyers up to a final price equal to or just below the price line—i.e., $37,030.
Alternatively, Tidel argues that Taylor‟s discussions with G4S and Armaguard regarding
a “working market price of $40k . . . using a Mach 3 sorter” and an increased price of
“$42.5k (ish)” with a Mach 6 sorter were nothing more than preliminary market research
to verify the pricing assumptions contained in the sell-side documents prepared for
potential buyers of Tidel.89 I do not find Tidel‟s careful parsing of its previous statements
convincing.
The documentary and testimonial record adduced at trial demonstrates by a
preponderance of the evidence that Tidel breached Section 7.9 through a combination of
direct and indirect conduct through internal and external communications.90 Tidel
89 At trial, Landry asserted that such conduct was not impermissible because it was merely educating and informing others that Taylor had validated the R50‟s $42,500 market price through informal communications with potential customers. Tr. 545 (“It was designed to inform them about the product and the market, etc. It had a suggested average selling price in here of $42,500 . . . .”); Tr. 546 (“This is to give them a flavor of what the market looks like.”). 90 Plaintiffs also alleged that Tidel breached the applicable Non-Solicitation provision in Section 7.9. That provision states, in pertinent part:
During the Non-Competition Period, neither Buyer [Tidel] not the Company [Sentinel] or their respective Subsidiaries shall, in each case directly or indirectly through another person, . . . (iii) call on, solicit or service any customer, supplier, licensee, licensor, franchisee or other business relation of [Revolution] in connection with a Revolution Competitive Business, or in any way interfere with the relationship between any such customer, supplier, licensee or business relationship and [Revolution] (including, without 30 undertook, directly and indirectly, to assist and advise others, and to both engage in, and
propose to engage in, the development, marketing, and manufacturing of the enhanced
Series 5 that became the R50 at per unit selling prices above the Inflation Adjusted Price
Line. I find unpersuasive Tidel‟s argument that the R50 cannot be proven to “have a
selling price” above the price line because Tidel never actually sold an R50 at any price
during the Non-Competition Period.
I conclude that Tidel breached Section 7.9 based on the following facts that were
proven at trial by a preponderance of the evidence. For the most part, Smart Safes and
recyclers sell in different markets to different customers at price points that diverge
widely. After Tidel and Revolution separated, however, the parties identified a market
broader than their respective areas of expertise which neither could capture fully without
crossing the price line and competing directly with the other. Rather than negotiating to
eliminate the price line and compete openly for this middle market, the parties agreed to
extend their collaborative relationship by negotiating the Software License Agreement
and otherwise leaving the price line dichotomy in place.
limitation, inducing such person to cease doing business with [Revolution] or making any negative statements or communications about [Revolution], the Sellers, or any of their respective Affiliates) . . . .”
JX 4 § 7.9(d) (emphasis added). Revolution alleges that Tidel‟s above-the-price- line price negotiations and marketing efforts with certain of Revolution‟s customers also breached the Non-Solicitation provision. Tidel disagrees, arguing that both are permitted. I conclude that Revolution‟s claims with respect to both provisions stand or fall together.
31 In his final months as CEO of Tidel around November 2013, Levenick, who had
presided over both Tidel and Revolution and was familiar with the agreements governing
their relationship, remained committed to respecting the price line. Others, however,
grew impatient with the price line‟s restrictions and perceived a need to negotiate an
increase allowing Tidel to earn higher margins. Beregovsky, Taylor, Galgano, and others
exchanged a series of emails in mid-November that reflected Tidel‟s desire to move
towards, or beyond, the price line. On November 14, 2013, Taylor recounted a
conversation with Bank of America in which he described plans to launch a solution “mid
next year” with gross margins in the low- to mid-30% range and to develop a further
version for the end of next year in the 40% gross margin range. 91 Beregovsky responded,
asking, “[w]hat‟s preventing us from getting to higher [gross margins] for such a high
value product that‟s unique in the market? Is that the selling price?”92 In a later email on
the same thread, Beregovsky explained his concerns with the Series 5‟s gross margins,
saying, “[i]f this recycler is truly a unique product with significant potential and if we
can‟t charge a high equipment price because of the non compete, then we need to get
much higher margins via recurring services revenue. . . . When we go and sell Tidel, we
will obviously tout our high-end product and its growth potential.”93 Tidel further
demonstrated its desire to develop and manufacture cash management systems above the
91 PX 62 at 3. 92 Id. at 2. 93 Id. at 1.
32 price line when it asked Revolution to increase it to $42,500 to “achieve the margins . . .
normally expected from a product . . .” both on January 28, 2014 94 and February 14,
2015.95
Although Tidel had evidenced a desire to develop and manufacture cash
management systems above the price line as early as November 2013, I conclude that the
earliest date by which Revolution proved by clear and convincing evidence that Tidel
breached the Securities Purchase Agreement was March 10, 2014. On that date, Tidel
produced preliminary R50 technical specifications using the Glory Mach 6 and “R50”
name for the first time.96 Even though Tidel continued to use the “Series 5” name for
most, if not all, of the rest of 2014, I find that this document manifests a breach of
Section 7.9, as it proves Tidel had moved forward with plans to develop a high-end
product having a “higher spec” with a selling price above the price line.97
Furthermore, because Tidel‟s Board did not decide to put Tidel up for sale until
May 2014, I conclude that its efforts to develop and market the R50 to support such a
94 DX 63. 95 DX 69. 96 DX 75. In contrast to Series 5 specifications developed before Tidel fired Levenick, this document evidences Tidel‟s plan to develop the R50 with a coin recycler capable of processing 25,900 coins at a speed of 3,000 coins per second. Cf. DX 47 (determining that the Series 5 would have a capacity of 16,950 coins); Tr. 530 (Landry testifying that he laughed at 240 coins per second processing speed planned for the Series 5). 97 Accordingly, I also conclude that Tidel breached the non-solicitation provision in Section 7.9(d) when it marketed the Series 5 or R50 to or engaged in pricing negotiations with Revolution‟s customers above the price line. See supra note 90.
33 sale, including Taylor‟s “preliminary market research” and the sell-side documents
developed by Harris Williams, also breached Section 7.9. As I discussed above, Section
7.9 prohibited Tidel not only from selling cash management systems above the price line,
but also from developing or marketing such systems during the Non-Competition Period.
In other words, Tidel could not prepare to sell cash management systems above the price
line during the Non-Competition Period so that it could begin competing on the first day
after its expiration. This, however, is exactly what Tidel did—both directly, beginning in
March 2014, and indirectly, beginning in May 2014. Tidel argues that, because it
contemplated a stock sale and would be the same “person” both before and after a change
of control, Plaintiffs‟ argument that Tidel‟s selling efforts were undertaken for another
person is wrong. I need not decide that issue, however, because I conclude that Tidel‟s
efforts during 2014 to develop and market the R50 for sale above the price line breached
Section 7.9 regardless of whether it did so for itself or another person, such as an
investor.98
C. The Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Revolution argues, in the alternative, that the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing disproves Tidel‟s theory that the R50 did not have, and could not have had,
an offending “selling price” in violation of the price line because not a single R50 was
98 Galgano conceded that the business plans and strategy documents prepared as part of the sell-side documents, which indicated a planned average selling price of $42,500 for the Series 5 in 2015, also were created for the commercial purpose of Tidel bringing the Series 5 to market itself. Tr. 762, 765-66, 772.
34 sold at any price during the Non-Competition Period. According to Revolution, Tidel‟s
theory would permit the “development, marketing or manufacturing” of systems having
no price at all during the Non-Competition Period, the “shelv[ing]” of those systems until
after the Non-Competition Period expires, and the sale of those systems at prices above
the price line. Tidel responds that the implied covenant doctrine “is not a panacea for the
disgruntled litigant,” and it “cannot be invoked where the contract itself expressly covers
the subject at issue, as is the case here.99 I agree with Tidel‟s statement of the law, but, as
held above, disagree that the contract permitted Tidel‟s conduct. Tidel also is correct that
“[p]arties have a right to enter into good and bad contracts, [and] the law enforces
both.”100 In any event, because Revolution prevailed on its claim to enforce Section 7.9
of the Securities Purchase Agreement, I need not reach its claim for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim based on the same underlying conduct.
D. The Software License Agreement “Term” Is At Least Twenty Years
The parties ask the Court to determine the duration of Tidel‟s ability to exercise
the license grant contained in Section 2.1 (the “Grant Section”) of the Software License
Agreement by interpreting the word “Term” and the prepositional phrases “during the
Term” as used therein,101 and granting a declaratory judgment reflecting the Court‟s
determination. The Software License Agreement is governed by Texas law. Under
99 Fisk Ventures, LLC v. Segal, 2008 WL 1961156, at *10 (Del. Ch. May 7, 2008). 100 Nemec v. Shrader, 991 A.2d 1120, 1126 (Del. 2010). 101 JX 8.
35 Texas law, “[t]he primary concern of a court in construing a written contract is to
ascertain the true intent of the parties as expressed in the instrument.” 102 Courts will
construe ambiguous contracts as a matter of law.103 A contract is unambiguous if it “can
be given a certain or definite legal meaning or interpretation.”104 “Whether a contract is
ambiguous is a question of law for the court to decide by looking at the contract as a
whole in light of the circumstances present when the contract was entered.”105 A contract
must be construed from a utilitarian standpoint, bearing in mind the particular business
activity sought to be served, and avoiding a construction that is unreasonable, inequitable,
and oppressive.106 Once pertinent rules of construction are applied, if the contract can be
given definite or certain legal meaning, then it is unambiguous and should be construed
by the court as a matter of law.107
Tidel argues that the plain language of the Software License Agreement
unambiguously grants Tidel a perpetual license. Section 2.1 states that “Revolution
hereby grants to Tidel a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, sublicensable,
102 Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). 103 Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983). 104 Id. 105 Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 907 S.W.2d at 520. 106 Frost Nat’l Bank v. L & F Distrib., Ltd., 165 S.W.3d 310, 312 (Tex. 2005) (citing Reilly v. Rangers Mgmt., Inc., 727 S.W.2d 527, 530 (Tex. 1987)). 107 Id.
36 transferrable and fully paid-up license to use, copy, display publically [sic], modify,
create derivative works of, sell, and distribute the Licensed Software . . . during the
Term.”108 The “perpetual” and “irrevocable” language appears again in Section 2.2, in
which Tidel grants Revolution a perpetual and irrevocable cross-license to use any
modifications or enhancements Tidel makes to Revolution‟s software.109 Section 4.1
implies that “the license grant in the Licensed Software from Revolution to Tidel shall
continue on a royalty free basis” for an open-ended amount of time after the twenty-year
License Fee Period defined therein.110 Section 8.1 corroborates the perpetual and
irrevocable nature of the license granted by the Software License Agreement, stating that
“[n]either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement for any reason
whatsoever, including for breach hereof.”111 Section 8.3 states further that the
bankruptcy of either party “shall not be a basis for termination or cancellation of the
licenses granted in this Agreement.”112
The ordinary meaning of the word “Term,” however, indicates a limited and finite
duration. The Grant Section indicates plainly that Tidel‟s right to exercise the license
grant exists only “during the Term.” Even though “Term” is capitalized in that section
108 JX 8 § 2.1. 109 Id. § 2.2. 110 Id. § 4.1. 111 Id. § 8.1. 112 Id. § 8.3.
37 and elsewhere, it is undefined. Texas law presumes that parties intend an undefined term
to have its plain, generally accepted meaning.113 The word “term” means “a fixed period
of time,”114 or “a period of time to which limits have been set.”115 In other words, by its
plain meaning, a “Term” cannot be perpetual. Instead, “Term” and “during the Term,”
used in the context of the software license “grant,” create a period of limited duration
during which the Software License Agreement would be in effect and enable the grantee
to exercise the license.116 The relevant language of the grant states:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this [Software License] Agreement, Revolution hereby grants to Tidel a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, sublicensable, transferrable and fully paid-up license to use, copy, display publically [sic], modify, create derivative works of, sell, and distribute the Licensed Software and Other Licensed Intellectual Property in the Territory during the Term. Such license expressly includes the right to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell and import Licensed Products that use the Licensed Software and/or Other Licensed Intellectual Property in the Territory during the Term.117
113 Epps v. Fowler, 351 S.W.3d 862, 866 (Tex. 2011) (citing Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 662 (Tex. 2005)). 114 Term, BLACK‟S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014). 115 Term, DICTIONARY.COM, http://dictionary.reference.com (last visited Oct. 29, 2015). 116 See Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 139 (2010) (observing that context determines the meaning of a word with multiple meanings, but that courts do not force term-of-art definitions into contexts where they plainly do not fit) (citing Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co., 367 U.S. 303, 307 (1961)). 117 JX 8 § 2.1.
38 Furthermore, the ordinary meaning of “Term” does not specify or inform the
temporal limit of duration of “during the Term”; instead, it denotes a limited scope of
duration without indicating the actual temporal limit of that duration. Under Texas law:
The words of a legal instrument are simply indices to external things, and words always need interpretation. It is always necessary to determine their association with external objects, and all circumstances should be considered that go to make clear the sense in which they were used, i.e., their association with things.118
“Where a question relating to the construction of a contract is presented . . . [courts] are
to take the wording of the instrument, considering the same in light of the surrounding
circumstances, and apply the pertinent rules of construction thereto and thus settle the
meaning of the contract.”119
In the context of contract construction, evidence of the surrounding events at the
time of the parties‟ agreement is not impermissible parol evidence; rather, it is used to
define the meaning of the words the parties chose to document their agreement. 120 Texas
law permits all writings that pertain to the same transaction to be considered together,
even if they were executed at different times and without express reference to one
118 Stewart v. Selder, 473 S.W.2d 3, 7 (Tex. 1971) (quoting WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE § 2470 (3d ed. 1940)) (emphasis added). 119 City of Pinehurst v. Spooner Addition Water Co., 432 S.W.2d 515, 519 (Tex. 1968). 120 See Sun Oil Co. (Del.) v. Madeley, 626 S.W.2d 726, 731 (Tex. 1982).
39 another.121 Accordingly, the duration of the “Term” and the legal effect of “during the
Term” in the Grant Section may be construed by reference to the context of the parties‟
collaborative business relationship, including consideration of all of the 2011
Agreements, as well as the circumstances that led to the Software License Agreement.
The Software License Agreement was part of a series of contracts governing the
parties‟ “continuing collaboration,” including the parties‟ sharing of intellectual
property.122 The non-competition provisions contained in the Securities Purchase
Agreement, however, precluded the parties from servicing unilaterally certain customers
who might prefer a full price spectrum of products. In or around fall 2012, Revolution
began actively looking for a solution for those customers who wanted cash management
systems with common software interfaces at price-points both above and below the
line.123 A proposed solution emerged that would enable Tidel to license Revolution‟s
software for systems in which a customer required a common interface, thereby making it
easier for Tidel to acquire the “below-the-line” component of a Revolution customer‟s
business, and vice versa for similarly situated Tidel customers who needed “above-the-
line” systems.124
121 DeWitt Cty. Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Parks, 1 S.W.3d 96, 102 (Tex. 1999); Bd. of Ins. Comm’rs v. Great So. Life Ins. Co., 239 S.W.2d 803, 809 (Tex. 1951). 122 Tr. 526 (Landry); DX 126 ¶ 4 (Landry Aff.). 123 See, e.g., Tr. 61, 69, 81 (Levenick); Tr. 524 (Landry). 124 See, e.g., Tr. 63-64, 67, 73, 77 (Levenick); Tr. 524 (Landry).
40 Levenick communicated this solution to one of Revolution‟s vendors, Fujitsu, to
encourage them to work with Tidel to meet the “below the line” needs of Revolution‟s
customers who were “already using Revolution‟s product (Whole Foods), or are in final
evaluations with Revolution (Wal-Mart), but need a smaller less costly unit for a segment
of their stores.”125 On Tidel‟s behalf, Levenick sought to “make this solution viable . . .
[and] to hit a price point in the market . . . ,” because Fujitsu note recyclers were “already
integrated into the Revolution platform [and] no additional software work would be
required for Series 5.”126 As further evidence of the collaborative purpose of the
Software License Agreement, the parties discussed providing Kmart, historically a
Revolution customer, with “a common user interface” for Tidel‟s below-the-line systems
that would provide “benefits in training [and] staff movement between stores . . . .”127
Revolution argues that, in light of Texas contract law principles and considering
the Software License Agreement‟s context and the particular collaborative business
purposes it was designed to achieve, the word “Term” means a finite timeframe
connected with, and dependent upon, the parties‟ contract-based manufacturing
relationship. Therefore, Revolution argues, when the term of the Manufacturing
125 DX 54. 126 Id. ¶ 2; Tr. 80-83 (Levenick). The evidence suggests that the Fujitsu note recyclers used in Revolution‟s product were higher performance and higher priced components than what Tidel contemplated using for the Series 5. Levenick apparently was encouraging Fujitsu to lower its price to achieve a higher sales volume. 127 PX 48.
41 Agreement ended on February 15, 2015, and the price line restrictions of the Non-
Competition Period also ended, there no longer was any reason for the license grant to
continue. By extension, then, Revolution posits that “during the Term” limits the
duration of Tidel‟s rights to exercise a license to Revolution‟s software to a period that
coincides with the termination of the Manufacturing Agreement.
In response, Tidel argues that Revolution‟s interpretation of the Software License
Agreement should be rejected as unreasonable. I agree. “An ambiguity arises only after
the application of established rules of construction leaves an agreement susceptible to
more than one meaning. Further, for an ambiguity to exist, both potential meanings must
be reasonable.”128 There is no reasonable reading of the Software License Agreement
that would incorporate by reference the meaning of the word “term” as used in the
Manufacturing Agreement. The parties executed the Manufacturing Agreement more
than a year earlier; it bears no relation to the cross-licensing of intellectual property; and
the Software License Agreement makes no reference to it. Revolution fails to offer any
explanation for why the “Term” in the Software License Agreement should correspond
with the (undefined) “term” as used in the Manufacturing Agreement and not the defined
“Term” of the Cross License Agreement, which the parties also executed in November
2011. Further, Revolution provides no reasonable explanation for linking the “Term” of
an agreement that is expressly non-terminable by either party with the term of an
128 DeWitt Cty. Elec. Co-op., 1 S.W.3d at 100.
42 agreement that was terminable by Tidel on one year‟s notice. To do so would render
meaningless the “non-terminable” provisions of the Software License Agreement.
In addition, I reject the way in which Revolution has sought to rely on parol
evidence to give context to the Software License Agreement.129 Extrinsic evidence is
inadmissible to “contradict or vary the meaning of the explicit language of the parties‟
written agreement.”130 Revolution‟s argument relies in part on Levenick‟s subjective
intent with respect to the “Term” of the Software License Agreement. Specifically,
Levenick testified that Revolution‟s board would not have agreed to authorize Tidel to
exercise for an unlimited duration the license grant to its software, considering the
potentially limited term of the parties‟ collaborative relationship and the restrictive
covenants.131 According to Levenick, this is why “during the Term” was included in the
language of the Grant Section.132 That is, at the end of the Term, each party would have
the independent ability (unrestricted by any price line covenant) to develop, market, and
manufacture cash management systems both above and below the price line for a
customer needing the same and each party could provide that customer a common user
interface for systems developed along the full price spectrum, using its own software.133
129 See Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 907 S.W.2d at 520. 130 Id. at 521. 131 Tr. 78. 132 Tr. 77. 133 DX 133 ¶ 125 (acknowledging that Tidel has its own software and user interface for its products). 43 Even if Levenick believed the agreement was to operate the way he explained,
however, case law and contract law are clear that the subjective intent of a party is not
controlling. What matters is what a reasonable person reading the contract objectively
would think it means. Revolution attempts to skirt the parol evidence rule by couching
its proffered evidence of Levenick‟s intent as indicia of the “circumstances” surrounding
the execution of the Software License Agreement, which Revolution argues is “not
impermissible parol evidence” under Texas law. But, the Court in Sun Oil stated that
“circumstances” excluded “oral statements by the parties of what they intended [the
contract] to mean.”134 Thus, to the extent Revolution‟s evidence of the “circumstances”
consists of Levenick‟s testimony about what he intended, that constitutes impermissible,
subjective, parol evidence. Finally, the Software License Agreement contains a merger
clause that precludes the admission of Revolution‟s proffered evidence.135 Where a
contract contains a merger clause, “it will be enforced as written and cannot be added to,
varied, or contradicted by parol evidence.”136
By contrast, Tidel argues strenuously that, because the Software License
Agreement is itself perpetual, it therefore grants to Tidel a perpetual license to create
Licensed Units. Revolution disagrees, arguing that such a construction defies plain
134 Sun Oil, 626 S.W.2d at 731 n.5. 135 JX 8 § 10.11. 136 ISG State Operations, Inc. v. Nat’l Heritage Ins. Co., 234 S.W.3d 711, 719 (Tex. App. 2007).
44 language and dishonors basic contract principles. Under the Grant Section, Licensed
Units sold by Tidel during the Term would be licensed in perpetuity. Tidel‟s contention
that the duration of the “Term” is perpetual and the phrase “during the Term” means “in
perpetuity,” however, defies both the common meaning and the common usage of the
word “term” in the context of the Grant Section. Tidel would have “Term,” i.e., a word
meaning a limit of duration, mean the same as “perpetual,” i.e., a word indicating
limitless duration. Tidel‟s construction would negate the very existence of the
prepositional phrase, “during the Term”—used four separate times—in the Grant
Sections of the Software License Agreement. Tidel‟s construction also would render
superfluous the words “Term” and phrases “during the Term” and “for the Term” as used
throughout the agreement in Sections 2.1, 2.2, 6.1, and 10.3.
Tidel also insists that the Software License Agreement is itself perpetual and,
therefore, grants to Tidel a perpetual license to create Licensed Units. This argument
overlooks the legal distinction between a perpetual license and a perpetual agreement.
An agreement granting a perpetual and irrevocable license of intellectual property rights
in software is distinguishable from the scope and duration of an agreement which
provides a grant of rights to exercise such a license.137 Furthermore, Texas law disfavors
perpetual agreements. As a matter of Texas law, which is in accord with Delaware law,
137 See Vance v. Casebolt, 841 P.2d 394, 400 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992) (noting distinction between the term of a license and the term of the license agreement itself).
45 if the Court determines that the “Term” of the Software License Agreement itself was
drafted to be perpetual, then the agreement is terminable at will by either of the parties. 138
Moreover, the agreement cannot be read in harmony, as a whole, if Tidel‟s
argument is accepted. For example, Section 9.1 contemplates expressly that the parties‟
obligations may be “terminated by the termination or expiration of this Agreement . . .,”
and Section 10.3 indicates that certain confidentiality obligations of the parties continue
by agreement only, “for the Term and for a period of seven (7) years thereafter . . . .”139
Accordingly, Tidel‟s argument would render the language of Sections 9.1 and 10.3
meaningless or superfluous. Texas law does not permit a court to adopt such an
interpretation of a contract.140 Sections 2.1, 2.2, 6.1, 8.1, 9.1, and 10.3, independently
and collectively, are harmonious and effective only if the Software License Agreement is
not a contract of perpetual duration.
Texas law construes the words of a legal instrument based on “their association
with things.”141 To my mind, the word “Term” in the context of the Software License
Agreement more likely than not operates as an analog to the “Term” defined in the Cross-
138 See Delta Servs. & Equip., Inc. v. Ryko Mfg. Co., 908 F.2d 7, 9-10 (5th Cir. 1990); Clear Lake City Water Auth. v. Clear Lake Util. Co., 549 S.W.2d 385, 390 (Tex. 1977); SHA, LLC v. Nw. Tex. Healthcare Sys., Inc., 2014 WL 31420, at *3 (Tex. App. Jan. 3, 2014); accord Silver Lake Office Plaza, LLC v. Lanard & Axilbund, Inc., 2014 WL 5953778, at *8 (Del. Super. Jan. 17, 2014). 139 JX 8. 140 See Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 393. 141 Stewart, 473 S.W.2d at 7 (quoting WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE § 2470 (3d ed. 1940)).
46 License Agreement that relates to patents and related proprietary rights.142 There,
“Term” means the period of time on a country-by-country basis from the Effective Date
until there are no longer any Valid Claims under any of the Licensed Patents.143
Although the Software License Agreement concerns Licensed Software and not Licensed
Patents, I interpret the Term of the Software License Agreement similarly to derive its
meaning from the parties‟ rights to use the Licensed Software for the life of the
intellectual property subject to the license.144 In other words, I interpret the word “Term”
and phrase “during the Term” based on their association with external objects, namely the
intellectual property rights underlying the Licensed Software.
Because the record on this issue is not well-developed, I take judicial notice of
Federal copyright law to ascertain evidence of what the law considers the reasonable
duration of copyrights, such as those underlying the Licensed Software at issue here.
According to 17 U.S.C. § 302(a), “[c]opyright in a work created on or after January 1,
1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections,
142 JX 6 (recitals explaining that Tidel and Revolution each desire to license their respective patents and other proprietary rights to the other). 143 JX 6 § 1. In addition, “Valid Claim” is defined to mean a claim in any unexpired and issued Licensed Patent that has not been disclaimed, denied, or admitted to be invalid or unenforceable or revoked or held invalid or unenforceable by a final unappealable decision of a court of competent jurisdiction or government agency and that would be infringed in the applicable country by the using, making, having made, offering for sale, selling, or importing of such Licensed Product, but for the license granted to the other Party under this Agreement. Id. 144 “Where the duration of a contract is not expressly prescribed, a reasonable time will be inferred.” Beago, 619 S.W.2d at 295.
47 endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author‟s
death.”145 I need not determine more definitely the duration of the copyrights underlying
the Licensed Software, nor do I need to determine the duration of the “Term” to an exact
number of years. Rather, I conclude that the duration of the “Term” at issue in the
Software License Agreement is more likely than not tied to the life of the intellectual
property rights associated with the Licensed Software.
Because the “Term” of the Software License Agreement is not defined and that
appears to be the product of inartful drafting, the Term of the agreement could be
considered ambiguous. That is, one reasonably could argue that the Term is a relatively
short period, as Revolution does, while another reasonably could argue that a relatively
long Term was intended, as Tidel does in contending the Term is either “perpetual” or at
least twenty years. To the extent the Term of the Software License Agreement is
ambiguous, I can consider any relevant extrinsic evidence in determining its meaning.146
Having reviewed the extrinsic evidence in this case, I conclude that it supports a finding
that the parties intended to grant, to the extent possible, a perpetual, irrevocable license
for Tidel to use Revolution‟s software. Every person involved with drafting the Software
License Agreement agreed that the software license was intended to be perpetual,
145 17 U.S.C. § 302(a). 146 Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 907 S.W.2d at 520 (“If, however, the language of a policy or contract is subject to two or more reasonable interpretations, it is ambiguous. . . . Only where a contract is first determined to be ambiguous may the courts consider the parties‟ interpretations . . . and admit extraneous evidence to determine the true meaning of the instrument.” (internal citations omitted)).
48 irrevocable, and non-terminable—except Levenick. As the CEO of both Tidel and
Revolution, Levenick “dictated the terms under which [the agreement] would be
constructed” to Taylor (Tidel‟s Executive Vice President of Global Business
Development), Galgano (CFO of both Tidel and Revolution), and Hudson (Revolution‟s
General Manager).147 Galgano and Taylor testified that the instructions they received
from Levenick were clear: to create a perpetual license for Tidel to use Revolution‟s
software that could never be terminated.148 The attorneys who drafted the contract
confirmed to Galgano that the “[software] license is already perpetual and irrevocable
and the agreement cannot be terminated for any reason, even for breach.” 149 Levenick
himself agreed with these terms in March 2013.150 Landry and Beregovsky confirmed
that Levenick reported to the board in March 2013 that he had secured a perpetual license
for Tidel to use Revolution‟s software.151
Levenick is the only person who contends otherwise, yet his ex post explanation of
why the “Term” of the Software License Agreement is coextensive with the
Manufacturing Agreement is not credible. The Manufacturing Agreement was scheduled
147 Tr. 155 (Levenick). 148 Tr. 730 (Galgano); Tr. 897 (Taylor). 149 DX 33, 35; DX 36 (Galgano instructing the attorneys, “[w]e would like to add language that basically says that nothing can really break this. . . . And so long as Tidel pays the $250/unit . . . Tidel always has its right to use the license.”). 150 DX 37 (Levenick replying to the exchange, “Yes.”). 151 Tr. 421 (Landry); Tr. 705 (Beregovsky).
49 to end by its terms on November 2, 2016 at the latest, and did not contain any provision
that contemplated an extension or renewal. Thus, the Software License Agreement
would have ended automatically on November 2, 2016, with no chance of renewal. That
is not what Levenick told the board or anybody else. Indeed, Beregovsky testified that he
never would have approved the R50 without Levenick‟s assurances that the Software
License Agreement was perpetual.152 Accordingly, even assuming it is relevant, I do not
consider reliable Levenick‟s testimony that, as a 20-year veteran CEO of a successful
cash management system company, he sought and obtained board approval to invest
heavily in a new product with an untested market relying on software that Tidel would
lose the rights to use in as early as three years.
In Texas, contracts without a definite term of duration remain enforceable.153
“When the duration of a contract is not expressly prescribed, a reasonable time will be
inferred.”154 Tidel argues that, if the Court determines that the term of the Software
License Agreement is not perpetual, then the license granted by Revolution to Tidel
should extend for not less than twenty years from the date the Software License
Agreement was executed. This twenty year period corresponds to the length of time
during which Tidel must pay Revolution a one-time license fee of $250 for every unit
152 Tr. 706. 153 O’Farrill Avila v. Gonzalez, 974 S.W.2d 237, 244-45 (Tex. App. 1998). 154 Marshall v. Marshall, 735 S.W.2d 587, 592 (Tex. App. 1987); Beago v. Ceres, 619 S.W.2d 293, 295 (Tex. App. 1981).
50 sold within that period that uses Revolution‟s software.155 “When it appears . . . that an
agreement is necessarily limited as to duration by the happening of any one of several
contingencies, this ascertainable contingency determines the duration” of a contract
without an express term.156 The Software License Agreement contains an ascertainable
contingency or event: the expiration of the twenty-year License Fee Period. Tidel argues
that that contingency should set the term of the agreement absent an enforceable
“perpetual” term.
I do not agree entirely with Tidel‟s argument, but conclude that, because no
evidence was presented on the duration of the “Term” in years other than approximately
two years, twenty years, or in perpetuity, it is reasonable to infer that the “Term” here
extends for at least twenty years.157 In this respect, I have not relied on Tidel‟s argument
that the License Fee Period—as an “ascertainable contingency”—alone determines the
155 See JX 8 § 4.1. 156 Marshall, 735 S.W.2d at 592. 157 I also consider unpersuasive Revolution‟s argument that construing the Term and the License Fee Period to have the same meaning would render one or the other of those separately defined terms meaningless or redundant because I do not accord those two terms the same meaning. Nor do I reach Revolution‟s argument that Texas law does not permit perpetual agreements; I have not construed the Software License Agreement to be perpetual.
For the reasons stated in this section and section II.G infra, I reject wholesale Revolution‟s request for a permanent injunction prohibiting Tidel from any further use of Revolution‟s software and ordering the return of all source code and software documentation in Tidel‟s possession, custody or control, as well as the removal of the software from any Tidel unit into which it has been installed and the recall of any units using Revolution‟s software that have been deployed to or piloted with third parties.
51 duration of the “Term” in concluding that a Term exceeding twenty years is appropriate.
Instead, I conclude that the “Term” extends for the life of the intellectual property
underlying the Licensed Software and draw an inference from the relatively lengthy
terms of copyrights, of which I take judicial notice, and the twenty-year License Fee
Period specified in the agreement that, in this instance, the “Term” lasts for at least
twenty years.
Revolution protests that a construction of the Software License Agreement
requiring Revolution to honor the one-time, per unit License Fee at the “family business
member price” of $250, even after the familial relationship was destroyed and devolved
into direct business competition, would be oppressive at its core. I disagree. Revolution
agreed to that license fee in the Software License Agreement.158 Furthermore, the
evidence shows that Levenick viewed Tidel and Revolution‟s family relationship through
rose-colored glasses. The twenty year $250 per unit License Fee Period supports my
view that Levenick more likely than not envisioned the parties‟ collaboration continuing
indefinitely. That is what the parties bargained for and is effectively what the parties
obtained—even when it cuts both ways. For example, Tidel has convinced this Court
that the Software License Agreement grants a license that cannot be terminated and
extends for a Term of at least twenty years. Yet, Section 2.2 of the same agreement
creates an arguably iron-clad cross-license that requires Tidel to share any modifications
158 JX 8 § 4.1.
52 it makes to the Licensed Software with Revolution during the same Term. The parties
also must live with that provision.
E. Tidel Misused Revolution’s Confidential Information
The Manufacturing Agreement, Services Agreement, and Cross License
Agreement each contained confidentiality provisions obligating Tidel not to use
Revolution‟s confidential information other than for purposes of fulfilling contractual
obligations to Revolution.159 The Manufacturing Agreement defines Confidential
Information to include, among other things:
As used herein, “Confidential Information” means . . . any and all technical or business or financial information, . . . in whatever form or medium (regardless of whether tangible, intangible, visual or oral), . . . trade secrets, works of authorship, software programs, software source documents, software architecture, algorithms, formulae, ideas, techniques, know-how, processes, inventions, apparatuses, equipment, models, information related to current, future and proposed products and services, research, experimental work, development, design details, specifications and engineering information, procurement, purchasing and manufacturing requirements, costs, pricing . . . and any physical manifestations of Confidential Information (such as notes, reports, memoranda, etc.).160
159 JX 4 § 9(f) (Each party agrees to “use the other party‟s Confidential Information only as necessary to perform its obligations and exercise its rights under this [Manufacturing] Agreement . . . .”); JX 5 § 6 (Each party agrees to “use the other party‟s confidential or proprietary information only as necessary to perform its obligations and exercise its rights under this [Administrative Services] Agreement . . . .”); JX 6 § 9.3 (Each party agrees that it “will not use any Confidential Information except for the limited purposes set forth in this [Cross License] Agreement . . . .”). 160 JX 4 § 9(e).
53 In addition, the Cross License Agreement defines, with some exceptions, Confidential
Information as “all information and data, regardless of form, including a formula, pattern,
compilation, program, method, technique, process, material, physical or chemical
structure or activity, design, [or] source code . . . proprietary to the disclosing Party or its
Affiliates . . . .”161
Revolution complains that Tidel impermissibly has used Confidential Information
in developing two aspects of the R50: (1) its parts; and (2) its software. Moreland
admitted that Tidel used Revolution‟s Confidential Information, including its Solidworks
files, to develop the R50 and several of its parts, including the top cover, the coin return
bin, various mounting brackets, and the door stop.162 I held above that Tidel‟s
development of the R50 breached Section 7.9 of the Securities Purchase Agreement. In
addition, it is clear that Tidel‟s development of the R50 was not in the performance of its
obligations or exercise of its rights under the Manufacturing, Services, or Cross License
Agreements. Accordingly, I conclude that Tidel misused Revolution‟s Confidential
Information in breach of these agreements.
Tidel argues that it reserved its right to use the top cover and door stop models
under the September 2014 release, as evidenced by the fact that they were stamped with a
161 JX 6 § 1. 162 Tr. 673-78.
54 Tidel Engineering legend.163 I disagree. Section 1 of that release stated that “Tidel and
[Revolution] hereby agree that Documents created prior to November 2, 2011 are “Other
Intellectual Property” within the meaning of the Cross License Agreement and each
party‟s rights with respect to such Documents are covered by the Cross License
Agreement.”164 In Section 2 of the release, Tidel released Revolution of liability with
respect to, and granted to, Revolution the right to use and license certain additional
engineering documents and drawings created pursuant to the November 2, 2011
Manufacturing Agreement, but clarified that such release and right to use was not a
trademark license with respect to any Tidel trademarks incorporated in or appearing on
documents or drawings created before or after the parties entered into the Manufacturing
Agreement. Because the documents and drawings that form the basis for Revolution‟s
claims in this action were created before November 2, 2011,165 the plain language of the
September 2014 release dictates that they are “Other Intellectual Property” within the
meaning of the Cross License Agreement, which agreement also specifies the rights of
the parties with respect to those part designs. In particular, Tidel had undertaken that it
would not use Revolution‟s “Other Intellectual Property” except in the performance of its
obligations or exercise of its rights under the Cross License Agreement, as well as the
163 DX 100 § 1 (and first WHEREAS). 164 Id. § 1. 165 DX 144 at 6 (top cover file created March 5, 2008), 8 (coin return bin files created August 17, 2011), 10-11 (mount bracket files created July 30, 2007 and March 5, 2008), 12 (door stop file created June 23, 2010).
55 Manufacturing and Services Agreements. Therefore, Tidel‟s use of the parts models in
developing the R50 with a selling price above the price line breached the confidentiality
provisions and use limitations in those agreements, and the September 2014 release
provided no safe harbor in that regard.
Tidel contends that the door stop is not at issue because Tidel replaced that part
with one of a different design for the production version of the R50.166 Nonetheless,
Moreland admitted to using the door stop model in the R50 prototype designs, 167 which,
as discussed below, would be in violation of Revolution‟s contract rights.
Finally, Tidel avers that Revolution presented no evidence that Tidel benefited in
any way from the use of the four models. But, Tidel‟s own expert, Paul Terpstra,
quantified the amount of time (eight to twelve hours) and the value of his time ($80 to
$90 per hour) that it would have taken for him to create the Tidel parts from scratch as
opposed to using Revolution‟s confidential drawings. This translates into a range of
damages from $640 to $1,080.168 Terpstra admitted that he also would need models of
the pieces with which those parts interface,169 and Tidel admits that its engineers had
166 Defs.‟ Answering Br. 46; see also Tr. 1011 (Terpstra) (Tidel‟s expert testifying that “[t]here are no features in common between the [Tidel and Revolution doorstop] models”). 167 Tr. 647 (“The door stop is the part that we use[d] for the prototypes but we‟re not using [it] in our production equipment.”). 168 Tr. 1046. 169 Tr. 1041.
56 access to all of Revolution‟s drawings in the development of the R50. 170 These
admissions support a reasonable inference that Tidel used Revolution‟s confidential
information not only for specific parts, but also for the full benefit of all the Revolution
drawings that they needed for interfacing pieces. I conclude, therefore, that Revolution
proved that Tidel breached the confidentiality provision in the Manufacturing Agreement
and that it is entitled to damages and a permanent injunction based on this breach, as
discussed in greater detail infra.
Next, Revolution argues that its software is also confidential information and
seeks $2 million in damages arising from Tidel‟s alleged misuse of that software in
connection with its development of the R50. Having construed both the Software
License and the Securities Purchase Agreements above, I reject Revolution‟s argument
that Tidel breached the applicable confidentiality provisions by installing the Licensed
Software into R50 systems for the following reasons. First, whether the software at issue
was “Confidential Information” under the Manufacturing, Services, or Cross License
Agreements is irrelevant, because the Software License Agreement expressly governs
Tidel‟s right to use the Licensed Software and in that respect superseded those prior
agreements. Second, the Software License Agreement does not limit Tidel‟s use of the
Licensed Software; in fact, the Grant Section allows Tidel “to use, copy, display
publically [sic], modify, create derivative works of, sell, and distribute the Licensed
170 Tr. 807 (Powers).
57 Software and Other Licensed Intellectual Property in the Territory during the Term.” 171 I
held above that the “Term” did not expire with the Manufacturing Agreement, but has a
duration of at least twenty years from the inception of the Software License Agreement
on March 29, 2013. Therefore, Tidel had the right to use the Licensed Software. Finally,
because the parties intended the Inflation Adjusted Price Line to terminate with the
Manufacturing Agreement and that agreement in fact terminated on February 15, 2015,
and the parties agreed in the Software License Agreement that the License Fee Period
would be twenty years, I conclude that the parties intended the $250/unit “brother-in-
law” License Fee to continue after their collaborative business relationship terminated.
Therefore, I reject Revolution‟s contention that they are entitled to $2 million in damages
based on Tidel‟s alleged misuse of the Revolution software.172
171 JX 8 § 2.1. 172 I also find that Revolution failed to prove any misuse of the software because Revolution failed to prove that an enforceable contract prevented Tidel from using the software in an R50 developed for sale above the price line. Absent the Software License Agreement, Tidel could not have used the software beyond what was necessary to fulfill its obligations to Revolution under Section 9(f) of the Manufacturing Agreement. But the Software License Agreement granted Tidel the right to use the software outside its performance of its obligations under the Manufacturing Agreement. Revolution has not satisfied its burden of proving otherwise. In fact, the evidence supports a finding that use of the Revolution software in a Tidel Series 5 or R50 system would not mean, in and of itself, that the system was being developed to have a selling price above the Inflation Adjusted Price Line.
58 F. Revolution is Entitled to Relief for Tidel’s Breaches
1. Tidel’s breach of the Securities Purchase Agreement
a. Permanent injunction
Revolution proved entitlement to a permanent injunction of limited duration for
Tidel‟s breach of the Securities Purchase Agreement. To obtain a permanent injunction,
Revolution must show: (1) actual success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm; and (3) a
balance of the equities favoring such relief.173 To show that it is entitled to specific
performance of a covenant not to compete, Revolution must prove the same elements by
clear and convincing evidence.174 For the following reasons, I conclude Revolution has
met these burdens.
Revolution proved a breach of Section 7.9 by Tidel‟s development of the R50 with
a “new [gross margin] if we go to Mach 6 with new pricing.”175 Revolution proved that
the breach commenced on March 10, 2014—promptly after Tidel terminated the
Manufacturing Agreement. By July 2014, Landry and Taylor openly had communicated
Tidel‟s new philosophy of a “higher price for a higher spec” regarding the development
of the R50.176 Taylor brazenly called upon two of Revolution‟s own customers
173 Kan-Di-Ki, 2015 WL 4503210, at *25; Concord v. Wilm. Steel Processing Co., 2009 WL 3161643, at *10-11 (Del. Ch. Sept. 30, 2009). 174 Kan-Di-Ki, 2015 WL 4503210, at *25. 175 DX 90. The Mach 6 is a higher performance component than what Levenick had proposed for the Series 5 or R50 before his termination. 176 DX 90; PX 106-107.
59 concerning the new specification and increased price to “$42.5k (ish).” And Galgano
reiterated the “new pricing” plan days later: “We need to change Series 5 price to
$42500 . . . .”177 By August 2014, internal Tidel documents were approved by the Board,
declaring that “[t]he Series 5 [R50] will be priced at an [average selling price] of $42.5k
. . . .”178 Therefore, I conclude that Revolution has shown by clear and convincing
evidence that Tidel developed and marketed the Series 5—later renamed the R50—with a
selling price above the Inflation Adjusted Price Line at least as early as March 10, 2014.
As to irreparable harm, this Court may rely upon enforceable contractual
affirmations of the existence of such harm.179 Here, the Securities Purchase Agreement
provides that “[e]ach Party recognizes and affirms that in the event of breach by it of any
of the provisions of this Section 7.9, money damages would be inadequate and the other
Parties would have no adequate remedy at law.”180 The parties‟ arm‟s length agreement
concerning the inadequacy of a legal remedy satisfies the irreparable harm requirement
for injunctive relief,181 and the trial record reflecting the nature and extent of Tidel‟s
breaches further supports such a finding.
177 JX 17. 178 Tr. 769 (Galgano). 179 See Kan-Di-Ki, 2015 WL 4503210, at *26. 180 JX 3 § 7.9(h). 181 Hough Assocs., Inc., 2007 WL 148751, at *18.
60 Balancing the equities also favors issuance of injunctive relief similar in scope and
duration to that sought by Revolution. Plaintiff is entitled to the full and fair benefit of its
bargain, i.e., fair competition resulting from a clean start. Revolution proved that Tidel
jumped the starting gun by impermissibly developing and marketing an R50 having a
higher specification and suitable for sale above the price line months before the Non-
Competition Period ended on February 15, 2015. Tidel, therefore, “is in a particularly
poor position to object that . . . [it] will suffer restraint greater than that to which [it]
agreed.”182 In other words, balancing the equities requires returning Tidel to the starting
line to remedy its calculated false start, so that Revolution receives the contractual
protection for which it bargained.183
Here, I look to Section 7.9 itself as “the most appropriate caliper for measuring
and defining an appropriate remedy, including its duration.”184 The parties agreed to
remedy a proven violation by “extension of the Non-Competition Period . . . equal to (i)
the length of the violation of this Section 7.9 plus (ii) the length of any court proceedings
182 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Price, 1989 WL 108412, at *5 (Del. Ch. Sept. 13, 1989). 183 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Mullany, C.A. No. 6050-VCL, at *78 (Del. Ch. Dec. 15, 2010) (TRANSCRIPT) (observing that balance of the equities would favor enforcement of non-competition agreement where one party took a “calculated risk” that the other would not seek to enforce its right). 184 All Pro Maids, Inc. v. Layton, 2004 WL 1878784, at *12 (Del. Ch. Aug. 9, 2004); Tristate Courier & Carriage, Inc. v. Berryman, 2004 WL 835886, at *14 (Del. Ch. Apr. 15, 2004).
61 necessary to stop such violation.”185 Therefore, Section 7.9(h) provides a basis for
granting an injunction with duration equal to the number of days between March 10,
2014 and the date of the issuance of an injunction in this litigation. An appropriate
injunction is being entered concurrently with this Memorandum Opinion on October 30,
2015. Therefore, the length of the injunction will be for 599 days, i.e., approximately
twenty months.
Revolution seeks an injunction enforcing the terms of Section 7.9(c), and then
some—i.e., Revolution requests that I enjoin Tidel from:
. . . anywhere in the world, directly or indirectly, either for itself or for any other Person, owning, operating, managing, controlling, engaging in, participating in, investing in, permitting its name to be used by, acting as consultant or advisor to, rendering services for (alone or in association with any Person) or otherwise assisting in any manner, any Person that engages in or owns, invests in, operates, manages or controls any venture or enterprise which directly or indirectly engages or proposes to engage in the business of developing, marketing, or manufacturing the R50 cash management system or any alternative configuration of the R50 under any name.186
Revolution argues that an injunction permitting Tidel to continue selling the R50,
as long as it does so below the price line, would be inequitable. I agree, but only to the
extent the R50 meets the higher specification Tidel effectively adopted on or about
March 10, 2014 or otherwise is developed for higher performance than the Series 5 as it
185 JX 3 § 7.9(h). 186 Pl.‟s Reply Br. 24.
62 existed in December 2013. As discussed above, the plain language of Section 7.9(c)
prohibits not only selling cash management systems above the price line, but even
developing such systems. The right determines the remedy. Here, I consider the
appropriate remedy to be an injunction remedying Tidel‟s breach of Section 7.9, which I
concluded stemmed from its developing and marketing of a higher performance cash
management system with a selling price above the Inflation Adjusted Price Line. That is,
had Tidel complied with the bargained-for restriction, the R50 in its latest iterations
would not exist. Therefore, I conclude that Revolution is entitled to an injunction similar
to the one it seeks. I find, however, that, in at least one respect, Revolution‟s proposed
injunction is too broad.
That aspect relates to the specifications for the R50. Before March 2014, Tidel
had expended substantial time and resources developing a Series 5 machine, which it
later referred to as the R50, with a lesser specification. As noted in Revolution‟s Reply
Brief, by December 2013, Levenick and Moreland had developed the Series 5 to have a
selling price below the price line using a coin recycler that could process up to 16,950
coins at a speed of 240 coins per second.187 Then, first in January and again in February
2014, Tidel sought Revolution‟s consent to use Revolution‟s coin sorter intellectual
property in support of its development of a more advanced product and to increase the
price line to enable it to do so. The March 10 document is the next manifestation of
Tidel‟s impermissible plans to develop a product with a selling price above the price line.
187 Pl.‟s Reply Br. 4.
63 Accordingly, Revolution is entitled to an injunction restricting Tidel‟s marketing or sale
of any cash management system utilizing a note recycler and a coin recycler together
with technical specifications materially more advanced than the December 2013 Series
5—which I conclude was the last “version” of the R50 permitted by the Securities
Purchase Agreement.188 The injunction will not preclude Tidel from using the software
subject to the Software License Agreement.
b. Damages
Revolution, however, is not entitled to the monetary damages it seeks for Tidel‟s
breaches of the Securities Purchase Agreement. To prove damages, Revolution “must
show both the existence of damages provable to a reasonable certainty, and that these
damages flowed from the defendants‟ violation of the contract.”189 Revolution alleged
two bases for monetary relief: a lost profits theory and an unjust enrichment theory. Both
fail for the following reasons.
Revolution alleged that it is entitled to monetary damages of at least $89,487, or
the expected profit on nine R50 units. Revolution‟s argument lacks a factual or legal
basis. As a factual matter, Revolution does not explain why it is entitled to lost profits
relating to nine R50 machines and the record is devoid of evidence that Revolution lost
188 For the avoidance of doubt, this relief does not impinge from Tidel‟s rights with respect to subsections (x) and (y) of Section 7.9(c) to develop products with a note recycler but not a coin recycler, or a coin recycler without a note recycler, consistent with the terms therein. 189 LaPoint v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 2007 WL 2565709, at *9 (Del. Ch. Sept. 4, 2007).
64 any sales, much less nine units. As a legal matter, “[c]ontract damages . . . should not act
as a windfall.”190 Here, there has been no showing that Revolution‟s alleged lost profits
are likely to equal Tidel‟s profits on the nine R50‟s. The proper measure of Revolution‟s
damages, if any, would be the sales that Revolution purportedly lost as a result of Tidel‟s
breaches of the Securities Purchase Agreement—about which no evidence was produced
at trial. In fact, Brian McCabe of G4S testified that the opposite was true: even while
testing the R50, G4S pursued aggressively the adoption of Revolution‟s products in the
marketplace, including Series 7000 and Series 8000 recyclers.191
Revolution‟s lost profits theory also fails because it is inherently speculative.192
Delaware courts have held that “measuring money damages for an unproven technology”
is a “nearly impossible task” because “such damages are likely to be merely
speculative.”193 Here, Revolution‟s expert‟s damages model assumed that Revolution
was entitled to damages because the R50 would replace the Revolution 7000 on a one-to-
one basis, but the expert admitted he had no way to confirm that.194 Nor did he offer an
opinion as to whether Revolution even would make these projected sales as opposed to
190 Paul v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 974 A.2d 140, 146 (Del. 2009). 191 McCabe Dep. 19-20. 192 See Fletcher Int’l, Ltd. v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 2013 WL 6327997, at *17 (Del. Ch. Dec. 4, 2013). 193 Amaysing Techs. Corp. v. Cyberair Commc’ns, Inc., 2004 WL 1192602, at *5 (Del. Ch. May 28, 2004). 194 Tr. 357 (Bell).
65 some competitor other than Tidel.195 Revolution has identified no sales, customers, or
goodwill that it lost as a result of Tidel‟s breaches or any reasonable basis for inferring
that it would have suffered any such losses. Therefore, Revolution has failed to prove
that it has lost or will lose a single sale of the Revolution 7000 to the R50.
Revolution‟s unjust enrichment theory fares no better because it is precluded by
Revolution‟s own allegation that Tidel breached the Securities Purchase Agreement. A
“claim for unjust enrichment is not available if there is a contract that governs the
relationship between the parties that gives rise to the unjust enrichment claim.” 196 “When
the complaint alleges an express, enforceable contract that controls the parties‟
relationship . . . a claim for unjust enrichment will be dismissed.”197 I therefore deny
Revolution‟s request for damages arising out of Tidel‟s breach of the Securities Purchase
Agreement.
2. Tidel’s misuse of Revolution’s Confidential Information
Revolution proved that it is entitled to damages arising from Tidel‟s breach of the
Manufacturing, Services, and Cross License Agreements. In awarding Revolution
damages on its misuse of confidential information claim, however, I am mindful that the
amount of time Tidel saved by misusing Revolution‟s drawing, rather than the total
amount of time it would have taken Tidel to create the parts from scratch, is a more
195 Tr. 374. 196 Kuroda v. SPJS Hldgs., L.L.C., 971 A.2d 872, 891 (Del. Ch. 2009). 197 Id. (internal citation omitted).
66 appropriate measure of damages. Accordingly, I award Revolution only $640, which is
the low end of the range provided by Terpstra.
Revolution also proved entitlement to a permanent injunction preventing Tidel
from using Revolution‟s Confidential Information that remains in Tidel‟s possession and
requiring Tidel to return promptly “all copies” of Revolution‟s Solidworks models,
drawings, or documents. As set forth above, to prove entitlement to a permanent
injunction, Revolution must show: (1) actual success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm;
and (3) a balance of the equities favoring such relief.198 Revolution proved Tidel
breached several confidentiality provisions by clear and convincing evidence. Further,
this Court has long recognized that the impermissible use of proprietary and confidential
information constitutes irreparable harm.199 Finally, Tidel argues that injunctive relief is
unwarranted, but provides no basis for balancing the equities in its favor. Therefore, I
conclude Revolution is entitled to a permanent injunction enjoining Tidel from breaching
the confidentiality provisions of the Manufacturing, Services, and Cross License
Agreements and requiring Tidel promptly to return Revolution‟s confidential
information.
198 Kan-Di-Ki, 2015 WL 4503210, at *25; Concord, 2009 WL 3161643, at *10-11; Webb v. Glenbrook Owners Ass’n, Inc., 298 S.W.3d 374, 384 (Tex. App. 2009). 199 See, e.g., Am. Totalisator Co. v. Autotote Ltd., 1983 WL 21374, at *5 (Del. Ch. Aug. 19, 1983); W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Wu, 2006 WL 2692584, at *13-14 (Del. Ch. Sept. 15, 2006).
67 G. Tidel is Entitled to Relief
Entitlement to declaratory relief under Delaware law requires: (1) a controversy
involving the rights or other legal relations of the party seeking relief; (2) a controversy
in which the claim of right or other legal interest is asserted against one who has an
interest in contesting the claim; (3) the controversy must be between parties whose
interests are real and adverse; and (4) the issue involved in the controversy must be ripe
for judicial determination.200 Texas law is in accord.201 Neither party disputes the
existence of these elements. I also conclude independently that this controversy involves
the rights of the parties seeking relief, both parties have an interest in contesting each
others‟ claims, the controversy is between parties whose interests are real and adverse,
and the issues are ripe for judicial determination.
Tidel proved entitlement to a declaratory judgment that: (1) the license granted to
Tidel under the Software License Agreement as it relates to individual licensed products
or systems licensed during its Term is perpetual; (2) the “Term” during which Tidel has
the right to use the license granted by the Software License Agreement is not limited or
terminated by the termination of the Manufacturing Agreement; and (3) the “Term” of
200 Marshall v. Hill, 93 A.2d 524, 525 (Del. 1952). 201 Bonham State Bank v. Beadle, 907 S.W.2d 465, 467 (Tex. 1995) (“A declaratory judgment is appropriate only if a justiciable controversy exists as to the rights and status of the parties and the controversy will be resolved by the declaration sought . . . . „To constitute a justiciable controversy, there must exist a real and substantial controversy involving genuine conflict of tangible interests and not merely a theoretical dispute.‟” (internal citations omitted)).
68 the Software License Agreement extends at a minimum for a period of twenty years from
the date the agreement was executed, March 29, 2013. Tidel also is entitled to a
permanent injunction enjoining Revolution from representing in the marketplace or
elsewhere that Tidel or any of its affiliates do not have a valid license to the Licensed
Software.
H. Attorneys’ Fees
Texas law mandates the award of attorneys‟ fees for breach of contract—even if
the contract is silent as to an award of fees.202 To recover for attorneys‟ fees under
Section 38.001, “a party must (1) prevail on a cause of action for which attorneys‟ fees
are recoverable, and (2) recover damages.”203 A trial court “does not have the discretion
to deny fees altogether if they are proper under section 38.001.” 204 The claimant must
show (1) it pled for attorneys‟ fees; (2) it has a claim against the defendant for which
attorneys‟ fees are recoverable under the statute; (3) it was represented by an attorney; (4)
the opposing party is an individual or corporation; (5) the claimant presented its claim to
the opposing party; (6) the opposing party did not tender payment within thirty days
202 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 38.001-.006 (West 2015); see also Ventling v. Johnson, 2015 WL 2148056, at *8 (Tex. May 8, 2015); 1/2 Price Checks Cashed v. United Auto Ins. Co., 344 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. 2011). 203 Green Int’l, Inc. v. Solis, 951 S.W.2d 384, 390 (Tex. 1997). 204 Graybar Elec. Co. v. LEM & Assocs., 252 S.W.3d 536 (Tex. App. 2008); see also Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co., 134 S.W.3d 195, 201 (Tex. 2004).
69 following presentment; (7) the claimant prevailed on the claim; and (8) the claimant
incurred reasonable attorneys‟ fees.205
The Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (the “Texas UDJA”) also allows a
discretionary award of attorneys‟ fees.206 As permitted under the Texas UDJA,207 both
parties seek this Court‟s declaration of their respective rights, status, legal relations,
obligations, and interests in and under the Software License Agreement as well as the
Court‟s construction of the Software License Agreement. To the extent the Court awards
a party declaratory relief concerning the Software License Agreement, that party is
entitled to an award of costs and reasonable and necessary attorneys‟ fees as are equitable
and just.208
Revolution seeks an award of reasonable attorneys‟ fees for prevailing on its
claims for damages against Tidel for breach of the Manufacturing, Services, and Cross
License Agreements. Further, Revolution represents that it can make the necessary
showing required by Section 38.001(8).
Tidel challenges Revolution‟s entitlement to attorneys‟ fees on two bases. First,
Tidel argues that, under Texas law, limited partnerships are not subject to Section
205 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 38.001(8), 38.002 (West 2015); 1/2 Price Checks Cashed, 344 S.W.3d at 383; Great Am. Ins. v. N. Austin MUD, 908 S.W.2d 415, 427 n.10 (Tex. 1995). 206 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 37.009 (West 2015); Barshop v. Medina Cty. Underground Water Conserv. Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618, 637 (Tex. 1996). 207 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 37.001-.011 (West 2015). 208 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 37.009 (West 2015).
70 38.001.209 In support, Tidel asserts that the two corporate defendants in this case,
Sentinel Technologies, Inc. and Tidel, Inc., are holding companies against which no
claims were pursued and no evidence was introduced at trial supporting the notion that
either had any involvement in the transactions, events, or occurrences on which
Revolution‟s claims are based. Thus, according to Tidel, because the only entity alleged
to have committed any wrongdoing, Tidel Engineering, L.P., is a limited partnership not
subject to Section 38.001, Revolution is not entitled to an award of its attorneys‟ fees and
expenses. Second, even if I award Revolution its fees, Tidel avers that they must be
reasonable in relation to the benefit achieved.
Revolution prevailed on its misuse of confidential information claims and I
awarded it money damages, but only of a minimal amount. Assuming Revolution can
make the required showings under Section 38.001(8), I conclude Revolution is entitled to
an award of its reasonable attorneys‟ fees for prevailing on those claims. Tidel‟s
argument that Revolution is not entitled to recover its attorneys‟ fees because Section
38.001 does not apply to limited partnerships is clever, but I reject it under the
circumstances here. On February 14, 2014, Tidel Engineering, L.P., acting through
Landry as its President and CEO, gave Revolution notice of Sentinel, Inc.‟s termination
209 See Fleming & Assocs., L.L.P. v. Barton, 425 S.W.3d 560, 576 (Tex. App. 2014); see also Ganz v. Lyons P’ship, L.P., 173 F.R.D. 173, 176 (N.D. Tex. 1997) (interpreting Texas Civil Practice Remedies Code to preclude recovery of attorneys‟ fees from limited partnerships).
71 of the Manufacturing Agreement.210 Furthermore, on September 5, 2014, Landry, in
these same capacities, executed a release of rights under the Manufacturing Agreement,
an agreement to which Sentinel, Inc. was a party. Tidel, Inc. also was a party to the
Manufacturing Agreement. I conclude, therefore, that both Sentinel, Inc. and Tidel, Inc.,
as Defendants and as entities that were involved with the operative documents on
Revolution‟s claim for contract damages are liable under Section 38.001 to Revolution
for its reasonable attorneys‟ fees incurred in connection with the breach of contract
claims referenced above.
As to Tidel‟s argument that the fee award must be reasonable in amount in relation
to the benefit achieved, I have determined that a cap is appropriate based on the minimal
damages awarded. Specifically, Revolution is entitled to recover its attorneys fees and
expenses on this claim upon submission of appropriate documentation, but the total
amount may not exceed $25,000.
Both parties seek attorneys‟ fees arising from their claims for declaratory relief
pursuant to Section 37.009. As previously noted, Tidel prevailed on its claims for
declaratory relief in every respect. The Software License Agreement‟s plain language
states that the licenses granted thereunder are perpetual; I held that the “Term” during
which the Software License Agreement permitted Tidel to use that license is not limited
or terminated by the termination of the Manufacturing Agreement; and I determined that
the “Term” extends at least twenty years from the date the Agreement was executed—
210 DX 133 ¶ 9.
72 and probably longer. By contrast, I did not grant Revolution any declaratory relief
whatsoever with respect to any of its claims arising from contracts governed by Texas
law. Therefore, I award Tidel its reasonable attorneys‟ fees incurred in achieving the
declaratory judgment it sought.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff, Revolution, is entitled to a permanent
injunction based on Defendants‟ breaches of the Securities Purchase Agreement (Count
I), a permanent injunction and limited money damages for Defendants‟ breach of the
confidentiality and non-use provisions in the Manufacturing, Services, and Cross License
Agreements (Count III), and no more than $25,000 of its reasonable attorneys‟ fees in
prevailing on its damages claim under Count III. I further hold that Defendants are
entitled to a judgment declaring their rights with respect to the Software License
Agreement (Count I), a permanent injunction in connection with the same (Count II), and
their reasonable attorneys‟ fees arising therefrom. In all other respects, the requests for
relief from both Revolution and Defendants are denied. An implementing order
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Revolution Retail Systems, LLC v. Sentinel Technologies, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/revolution-retail-systems-llc-v-sentinel-technolog-delch-2015.