[vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner css=”%7B%22default%22%3A%7B%22margin-bottom%22%3A%222rem%22%7D%7D”][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Many cases feature a “good” company and a “bad” ex-employee or other bad actor. I was recently asked if the opposite also happens, where a plaintiff files a trade secret misappropriation case without sufficient (or any) evidence of wrongdoing.
如果原告在诉讼前没有进行充分的调查，或者在扣动诉讼扳机前缺乏部分或全部相关文件，这种情况肯定会发生。
Assuming that the defendant prevails at litigation, can they recover attorneys’ fees? Sometimes yes, sometimes no – it is still a bit inconsistent. DTSA allows a court to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party when a misappropriation claim is “made in bad faith”.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][us_image image=”348″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]In TransPerfect Global v. Lionbridge Technologies, the US district court in New York granted summary judgment in Lionbridge’s favor. There was no evidence that any trade secrets were obtained through improper means, no evidence of unpermitted use of trade secrets, no evidence of unauthorized disclosure, and no evidence of damage. Despite all this, the court did not award fees saying that Lionbridge failed to prove the “bad faith” high standard.
相比之下，伊利诺伊州第一上诉区根据《伊利诺伊州商业秘密法》确认了因恶意而产生的律师费。 在多媒体销售与营销公司诉 Marison Marzullo 案中，原告 MSM 起诉竞争对手 RAI 及其三名加入竞争对手的前雇员。
这三名员工确实在 RAI 使用了 MSM 的销售线索名单，但辩称这些信息并不保密，不属于商业秘密。 事实证明，MSM 公司经常与潜在客户分享这些名单，而没有签订任何形式的保密协议。
与 TransPerfect 案不同的是，上诉法院在此案中指出，MSM 的商业秘密索赔 "从未有过充分的事实依据，也没有现行法律或扩展现行法律的论据支持"。 律师费判给了被告 RAI。
资料来源
https://casetext.com/case/transperfect-glob-v-lionbridge-techs-6
https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/court-of-appeals-first-appellate-district/2020/1-19-1790.html[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
