一位联邦法院法官本周发布了一项命令，驳回了海能达要求重审或减少7.646亿美元损害赔偿金的请求，因为该公司利用摩托罗拉解决方案公司的商业机密和受版权保护的软件代码开发了其大部分DMR产品组合
. 诺格尔的命令重申了他3月份对海能达的判决，这一判决维持了2月份陪审团一致作出的裁决，即摩托罗拉解决方案公司该案中要求的所有损害赔偿金都是4个月的时间里争论的。
一位联邦法院法官本周发布了一项命令，驳回了海能达要求重审或减少7.646亿美元损害赔偿金的请求，因为该公司利用摩托罗拉解决方案公司的商业机密和受版权保护的软件代码开发了其大部分DMR产品组合
法官查尔斯·诺格尔命令中写道：“海能达公司没有达到作为法律问题作出判决的高标准，也没有达到重新审判、重新审议以前的命令或赦免令的高标准。”
“陪审团和法院没有偏见，本案的程序是适当的，法律判决是正确的，摩托罗拉索赔的法律要素得到满足，陪审团作出的判决和裁决法律上是适当的，并得到了审判证据中提交的压倒性证据的支持，法院指出，海能达律师事务所的资深律师每一个环节都对其进行了有力而细致的挑战。”
诺格尔的裁决指出，他拒绝“海能达其……动议中提出的每一个论点，并全盘否定该动议，但陪审团对衡平法问题的裁决的问题除外。”这些衡平法问题上，诺格尔命令双方就此事提交拟议的事实调查结果
诺格尔的命令重申了他3月份对海能达的判决，这一判决维持了2月份陪审团一致作出的裁决，即摩托罗拉解决方案公司该案中要求的所有损害赔偿金都是4个月的时间里争论的。巨额赔偿金迫使海能达美国分公司5月寻求破产保护
摩托罗拉解决方案公司（motorolasolutions）一份向IWCE紧急通信部门提供的声明中对诺格尔的订单表示赞赏
“Motorola Solutions对Norgle法官驳回Hydera重新审判的动议感到高兴，支持陪审团关于Hydera盗用摩托罗拉商业机密和侵犯摩托罗拉版权的判决，以及陪审团对摩托罗拉7.645亿美元的裁决，“根据摩托罗拉解决方案声明
“摩托罗拉解决方案公司以成为领先的技术和创新领导者而自豪，我们将继续致力于大力推进针对海能达的专利侵权、版权侵权和商业秘密盗窃诉讼。”
海能达其对IWCE紧急通信的声明中表达了不同的看法
根据海能达的声明，“海能达对地区法院拒绝减少赔偿金或至少拒绝重新审判感到非常失望。”。“海能达将向美国第七巡回上诉法院上诉本裁决和任何其他对地区法院仍审理中的动议不利的决定
“这一法律程序中，海能达将继续为经销商和客户提供一如既往的卓越支持。”
这一命令并不涉及摩托罗拉解决方案公司的禁令救济请求，禁止海能达出售其DMR产品组合中的关键产品。摩托罗拉解决方案的律师要求诺格尔全球范围内发出永久禁令，主要是因为自从诺格尔3月份作出判决以来，海能达一直销售有争议的DMR产品
诺格尔对禁令的决定整个LMR行业都是意料之中的。据多数消息人士透露，如果摩托罗拉解决方案公司的禁令救济请求获得批准，海能达对市场的影响将大大减弱。没有任何形式的禁令的情况下，海能达可以继续销售其DMR产品，尽管是第11章破产程序期间美国境内设立的一个新实体
当然，海能达美国分公司需要宣布破产的驱动因素是，由于商业机密和版权案，海能达欠摩托罗拉解决方案公司7.646亿美元的损失
如果没有联邦法院对摩托罗拉解决方案公司（Motorola Solutions）的大规模裁决，海能达美国分公司仍将是可行的业务——摩托罗拉解决方案公司（Motorola Solutions）要求解散的动议承认了这一事实。截至2019年12月31日的一年里，海能达美国分公司的两个主要部门的总收入为4290万美元，尽管净营业收入导致了约10万美元的亏损
海能达律师要求诺格尔重新审理此案，但法官拒绝了这一请求
海能达有权提出三个不同的论点。摩托罗拉未能满足商业秘密索赔的要素；2。摩托罗拉的商业秘密索赔受到诉讼时效的限制。摩托罗拉没有提出版权要求有几个原因
海能达的这些论据都无法克服其高的证据负担。法院不会推翻陪审团的裁决，除非没有合理的陪审员认为摩托罗拉是有利的，而且鉴于本案所提供的证据，海能达无法承担这一责任。”
去年11月开始的联邦法庭审判中，海能达律师承认，三名前摩托罗拉（当时该公司尚未更名为摩托罗拉解决方案公司）员工Samuel Chia、Y.T.Kok和G.S.Kok访问了超过7名员工，2008年他们离开并加入海能达公司之前，摩托罗拉提交了000份文件。然而，海能达的律师称这三名工程师是“坏蛋”，他们没有向海能达的任何人透露DMR的商业机密和软件是从摩托罗拉拿走的
诺格尔命令中指出，有证据表明，海能达聘用的摩托罗拉三名员工中的第一名G.S.Kok对海能达甚至无法独立开发DMR系统原型表示惊讶。应Chia的要求，当时仍摩托罗拉工作的Y.T.Kok开始下载技术文件，根据Norgle的命令，这些文件为Hytera工程师发现的DMR问题提供了解决方案
某些情况下，海能达完全复制了摩托罗拉的软件代码——“尤其是，包括某些点上包含相同拼写错误的代码，”诺格尔命令中指出
诺格尔称，其他情况下，海能达官方试图其DMR产品中隐藏摩托罗拉软件代码的使用
诺格尔的命令指出：“海能达辩称，陪审团不应被指示提供证据，因为法院没有作出海达故意不诚实地销毁证据的裁决。”。然而，记录中的证据支持这样一个不诚实的发现
例如，2008年6月，G.S.Kok写信给samchia，他们“需要重新编写软件，使其看起来与摩托罗拉不同”，以便“保护公司免受即将到来的诉讼。黄和嘉删除了挪用公款的证据，以掩盖他们的盗窃行为。”
海能达律师认为，损害赔偿是不公平的，因为损害是基于海能达全球销售的DMR产品。鉴于此案已提交美国法院审理，海能达认为，任何损害赔偿金应仅根据美国销售额计算
但诺格尔其命令中不同意这一观点，他指出，“其他法院已经审查并同意本法院的推理，或就DTSA（捍卫商业秘密法）和ITSA（伊利诺伊州商业秘密法）的适用范围得出类似结论。”
A federal-court judge this week released an order denying Hytera’s requests for a retrial or a reduction in the $764.6 million in damages for utilizing Motorola Solutions trade secrets and copyrighted software code to develop much of its DMR product portfolio.
“Hytera has not met the high standard for judgment as a matter of law, or for a new trial, or for reconsideration of previous orders or remittitur,” Judge Charles Norgle wrote in the order.
“The jury and the court were not biased, the procedures in this case were proper, the legal decisions were correct, the legal elements of Motorola’s claims were met, and the jury returned a verdict and award that are proper under the law and supported by overwhelming evidence that was submitted at trial—evidence, the court notes, which was robustly and meticulously challenged by skilled counsel for Hytera at each and every turn.”
Norgle’s ruling noted that he rejects “each and every argument raised by Hytera in its … motion and denies the motion in its entirety, except as to the issue of the advisory jury verdict on the equitable issues.” On these equitable issues, Norgle ordered both sides to submit proposed findings of fact on the matter.
Norgle’s order reaffirms the judgment he entered in March against Hytera—a decision that upheld the unanimous jury verdict issued in February that awarded Motorola Solutions all damages that it sought in the case, which was argued over a four-month period. The massive damages award forced Hytera’s U.S. divisions to seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in May.
Motorola Solutions applauded the Norgle order in a statement provided to .
“Motorola Solutions is pleased by Judge Norgle’s decision to reject Hytera’s motion for a new trial, upholding the jury’s verdict that Hytera misappropriated Motorola’s trade secrets and infringed Motorola’s copyrights, as well as the jury’s award of over $764.5 million to Motorola,” according to the Motorola Solutions statement.
“Motorola Solutions is proud to be a pioneering technology and innovation leader, and we remain committed to vigorously pursuing our patent infringement, copyright infringement and trade-secret-theft lawsuits against Hytera.”
Hytera expressed a different sentiment about the ruling in its statement to .
“Hytera is very disappointed by the district court’s refusal to reduce the damages awarded or, at a minimum, to order a new trial,” according to the Hytera statement. “Hytera will appeal this ruling and any other adverse decisions on the motions still pending before the district court to the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
“During this legal process, Hytera will continue to provide the same outstanding support it always has to both its dealers and customers.”
This order does not address Motorola Solutions’ request for injunctive relief that would prohibit Hytera from selling key offerings in its portfolio of DMR offerings. Motorola Solutions attorneys have asked Norgle for a worldwide permanent injunction, primarily because Hytera has continued to sell the contested DMR products since Norgle entered his judgment in March.
Norgle’s decision on the injunction has been anticipated throughout the LMR industry. If Motorola Solutions’ request for injunctive relief is granted, Hytera impact on the market would be greatly diminished, according to most sources. Without any kind of injunction, Hytera could continue to sell its DMR products as it has for years, albeit under a new entity within U.S. established during the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.
Of course, the driving factor in the need for Hytera’s U.S. divisions to declare bankruptcy is the $764.6 million in damages that Hytera owes Motorola Solutions as a result of the trade-secrets and copyright case.
Absent the massive federal-court award to Motorola Solutions, the Hytera U.S. divisions would remain viable businesses—a fact acknowledged in the Motorola Solution motion for dismissal. For the year ending on Dec. 31, 2019, the two primary Hytera U.S. divisions generated combined revenues of $42.9 million, although the net operating income resulted in a loss of about $100,000, according to the Huang declaration.
Hytera attorneys asked Norgle for a new trial in the matter, but the judge denied the request.
“Hytera raises three distinct arguments claiming it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law: 1. Motorola has failed to satisfy the elements of a trade-secret claim; 2. Motorola’s trade-secret claims are barred by the statute of limitations; and 3. Motorola has failed to state a copyright claim for several reasons,” Norgle states in his order.
“Hytera cannot overcome its high burden on any of these arguments, as the evidence supports the verdict. The court will not overturn the jury verdict unless no reasonable juror could have found in favor of Motorola, and Hytera cannot meet this burden, given the evidence presented in this case.”
During the federal-court trial that began last November, Hytera attorneys acknowledged that three former Motorola (the company had not yet changed its name to Motorola Solutions at the time) employees—Samuel Chia, Y.T. Kok and G.S. Kok—accessed more than 7,000 Motorola documents prior to each of them leaving and joining Hytera shortly in 2008. However, Hytera attorneys described the three engineers as “bad apples” who did not share with anyone else at Hytera that the DMR trade secrets and software were taken from Motorola.
In his order, Norgle notes evidence that G.S. Kok—the first of the three Motorola employees to be hired by Hytera—expressed surprise that Hytera had not been able to develop even a prototype DMR system on its own. At the request of Chia, Y.T. Kok—still working at Motorola at the time—began downloading technical documents that provided solutions to DMR problems identified by Hytera engineers, according to Norgle’s order.
In some cases, Hytera copied the Motorola software code entirely—“including, notably, code which contained identical misspellings at points,” Norgle notes in his order.
In other instances, Hytera officials attempted to hide the use of Motorola software code in its DMR products, according to Norgle.
“Hytera argues that the jury should not have been instructed on spoliation of evidence because the court did not make a finding that Hytera acted intentionally in bad faith in destroying evidence,” Norgle’s order states. “Evidence in the record supports such a bad-faith finding, however.
“In June 2008, for example, G.S. Kok wrote to Sam Chia that they ‘needed to re-write softwares to look different from Motorola’ in order to ‘protect the company from impending lawsuits. Huang and Chia deleted evidence of misappropriation to conceal their theft.”
Hytera attorneys have argued that the damages are unfair, because they are based on Hytera’s worldwide sales of DMR products. Given that the case is before a U.S. court, Hytera believes that any damages should be calculated based solely on U.S. sales.
But Norgle disagreed with this notion in his order, noting that “other courts have reviewed and agreed with this court’s reasoning or come to similar conclusions as to the reach of the DTSA [Defend Trade Secrets Act] and the ITSA [Illinois Trade Secrets Act].” |
