Omega Optical, Inc. v. Chroma Technology Corp.

Omega Optical appeals from a judgment of the superior court
in favor of defendant Chroma Technology Corporation and several other named defendants in Omega's action for trade secret misappropriation, conversion, breach of loyalty, tortious interference with business relations, unfair competition, conspiracy and breach of contract. Omega argues on appeal: (1) the court erred in its determination of the proof necessary to demonstrate trade secret misappropriation, and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that claim; (2) the court similarly erred
on each of its remaining claims, with the exception of its claims for breach of contract and conversion, and it is entitled to judgment in its favor on each of the claims; (3) the court erroneously determined that Omega's proof of damages was not sufficiently definite so as to allow for an award without resorting to speculation or conjecture; (4) Omega is entitled to an award of punitive damages as a matter of law; and, finally, (5) the court failed to make adequate findings regarding its crediting of the
individual defendants' testimony in light of Omega's theory and requested findings that a joint defense agreement undermined the credibility of that testimony. We affirm.

This case out of events spanning several months starting in
early 1991, in which a number of Omega Optical employees left the company and went into business together under the name of Chroma Technology Corporation. Chroma began making thin-film optical interference filters used in fluorescence microscopy, a product that Omega had developed and also produces. On October 1, 1996, Omega brought suit against Chroma and ten of its employees. Following a twenty-two-day bench trial, the trial court issued a 111-page decision finding in favor of defendants on all of Omega's claims.

Omega's appeal centers on its argument that, because defendants acquired substantial amounts of information that the court found was "protectible as a trade secret," it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, notwithstanding the trial court's extensive findings that Omega failed
to take reasonable steps to protect the information. The court concluded under the evidence that defendants owed no duty of confidentiality with regard to the information.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the
full text of the Court's opinion.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the
full text of the Court's opinion.

Affirmed in Defendant's favor.

Unavailable

Unavailable

C.L.