Coda Dev. S.R.O. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that allegations that the plaintiff and defendant companies had two meetings and signed a nondisclosure agreement to cooperate in developing a specific technology were sufficient to allege collaboration
• observing that the Supreme Court of the United States, in Krupski v. Costa Crociere S. p. A., 560 U.S. 538, 550 (2010), “expresses this preference.”
• explaining that “the bulk of the [district] court’s prior-art analysis rested on the Hrabal article” and that the court “used the Hrabal article to ‘determine whether it was a 2008 public disclosure of something Coda now claims was secret when disclosed to Goodyear in 2009’”
• evaluating whether the facts alleged in the complaint allow the reasonable inference that the plaintiff’s chief executive officer conceived the invention of the disputed patent and that the named inventors on the patent did not
• “[A] plaintiff gen- erally need not plead the lack of affirmative defenses to state a valid claim . . . .”
• “But whether the [] article actually disclosed those alleged novel trade secrets «12 || wasareasonably (indeed, hotly

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).