Life Sciences is an area ripe for trade secrets misappropriation litigation. In recent news, Merz Pharmaceuticals, LLC filed a lawsuit under the North Carolina Uniform Trade Secrets Act alleging that its former director of federal accounts, Andrew Thomas, stole trade secrets relating to Merz’s flagship botulinum toxin drug Xeomin®. Those secrets purportedly included drug pricing strategies, marketing plans, market share data, and potential customer lists, all of which were intended to grow Xeomin®’s presence in the government market sector — a key therapeutic sector for Merz’s drug, which is primarily known for its aesthetic effects.   

In the complaint, Merz alleged that it fired Thomas, and, within minutes of his firing, he transferred the secrets at issue from his company laptop to a personal thumb drive. Making matters worse, according to Merz, was the fact that Thomas then quickly transitioned to an identical role at Revance Therapeutics, Inc. and allegedly started leveraging the stolen secrets to push for sales of Revance’s newly approved competing neurotoxin Daxxify®. Arguing that Thomas agreed to protect Merz’s trade secrets as a condition of employment, Merz asked the court for temporary and permanent injunctions to stop Thomas from using the stolen secrets. 

To support its requested relief, Merz claimed that Thomas’s alleged theft has caused and will continue to cause irreparable injury to Merz’s business and client relationships because Revance – through Thomas’s employment – allegedly has “all the information it needs to effectively target Merz’s customers, anticipate Merz’s customer messaging, and undercut Merz’s strategies and pricing in the therapeutic marketplace.” Merz argued that such information would be critical to Daxxify®’s successful launch and ultimate persistence in the relevant market. Assuming no extension is requested, Thomas’s response to the complaint will be due in mid-December. 

It remains to be seen whether this lawsuit proceeds past the pleadings stage. This is because, while drug pricing information is invaluable to drug companies, courts are split as to whether such information properly constitutes a trade secret under applicable state laws. It also bears noting that, to the extent the suit does move forward and goes to trial, damages awards in recent trade secret litigations have been in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars.        

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Baldassare Vinti Baldassare Vinti

Baldassare (“Baldo”) Vinti heads Proskauer’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group.

Baldo’s practice focuses on litigating patent, false advertising, trade secret, life sciences, trademark and contractual matters in federal and state courts and before the International Trade Commission. He is a seasoned trial attorney responsible…

Baldassare (“Baldo”) Vinti heads Proskauer’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group.

Baldo’s practice focuses on litigating patent, false advertising, trade secret, life sciences, trademark and contractual matters in federal and state courts and before the International Trade Commission. He is a seasoned trial attorney responsible for all aspects of litigation, including Markman hearings, appeals before the Federal Circuit, case preparation and strategy, depositions, motion practice, and settlement negotiations. He has represented clients in high-stakes matters involving a broad range of technologies, including medical devices, diagnostics, immunoassays, prosthetics, pharmaceuticals, dental implants, electronic medical records systems, encryption technology, wound dressings, digital video compression, electronic book delivery and security systems, mobile media technologies, navigation and location-based services, bandwidth management, bar code scanning, lasers , and other technologies. Baldo has represented numerous major corporations, including Arkema S.A., British Telecommunications PLC, Church & Dwight Co., Inc., Henry Schein, Inc., Maidenform Brands Inc., Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Ossur North America Inc., Panasonic Corp., Sony Corp., Welch Foods, Inc., and Zenith Electronics LLC.

In addition, Baldo regularly handles transactional work, including intellectual property due diligence, licensing, intellectual property structural transactions, patentability studies, infringement/non-infringement opinions, and client counseling in intellectual property matters.

Baldo is an author and frequent commentator on patent issues pertaining to medical devices and a host of other intellectual property topics, and has been quoted in the National Law Journal, Bloomberg BNA, Law360, Westlaw Journal and Inside Counsel magazine. He is also a regular contributor of articles published in Medical Product Outsourcing magazine that deal with the medical device industry.

Baldo served as a judicial intern for Hon. John E. Sprizzo of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and for Hon. Charles A. LaTorella of the New York Supreme Court.

Photo of Michelle M. Ovanesian Michelle M. Ovanesian

Michelle Ovanesian is an associate in the Litigation Department, where she focuses on intellectual property and life sciences. Michelle has worked on a range of matters in federal district courts, including serving on the successful trial team in the Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi

Michelle Ovanesian is an associate in the Litigation Department, where she focuses on intellectual property and life sciences. Michelle has worked on a range of matters in federal district courts, including serving on the successful trial team in the Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi remand jury trial in the District of Delaware.

In addition to intellectual property and life sciences, Michelle’s practice has encompassed a variety of other legal matters, including privacy and cybersecurity, and bankruptcy litigation. Most recently, Michelle was part of the litigation team that represented the Financial Oversight and Management Board in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy proceedings.

Michelle maintains an active pro bono practice, with a focus on immigration law and civil rights. As part of her pro bono work, Michelle has filed an amicus brief in state court supporting the constitutionality of executive orders.