IN THE UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OFTEXAS DALLASDIVISION ZENIMAX MEDIA,INC.and IDSOFTWARE LLC,
Plaintiffs, v. OCULUSVR,LLC, PALMER LUCKEY,and F ACEBOOK, INC.
Defendants. ORDER No.3:14-CV-01849-P Now beforetheCourt isDefendant
Facebook's("Facebook")Motion toDismissCounts
1,2,4,5,and6,filedSeptember19,2014.Doc.47.Plaintiffs fileda
Responseon October10,
2014.Doc.67.DefendantfiledaReplyonOctober24,2014.Doc.79.Afterreviewingthe
parties'briefing, theevidence,and theapplicable law,theCourt
DENIESDefendant's Motion to Dismiss. I.Introduction1 Thisisa
disputeabout whoownsintellectual property that wasvitalin creating
a
virtual-reality("VR")headset.Plaintiffs,whoareinthevideogameindustry,contend
thatDefendant,
anonlinesocialnetworkingservice,misappropriatedPlaintiffs'tradesecrets,infringedon
their copyrighted materials,tortiouslyinterferedwitha
contract,unfairlycompetedagainst Plaintiffs, and unjustly
benefitted from their intellectual property. 1 Allof
theinformationfoundinthissectionisdrawnfromAmendedComplaint.Doc.38.Though
theCourt uses definitelanguage, theinformation isbasedonallegations
only. Order 3:14-CV-01849-P Page1 of 15 Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P
Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page l of l4 PagelD
6029AlthoughVRtechnologywouldbeagame-changerinthevideogameindustry,
developingthatkindof technologyposedsignificant challenges,such
asopticaldistortions.!d. at2.Inthe1990s,Plaintiff
ZeniMax("ZeniMax"),anditsnowsubsidiaryidSoftware,("id") conducted
research intoVR technology,including videogame
headsets.!d.at9.ZeniMax even
developed"prototypesoftware"thatwouldenableplayerstoexperiencevideogamesonaVR
headset.Id.at 9. DespiteZeniMax'sgainsin theVR technology
field,acommercially viableVR headset
remainedanelusiveaccomplishment.!d.Thekeyobstaclewasresolvingthelatencyeffect-thedelay
between a user'smovement and thecorresponding change in
thedisplayed image.!d. Nonetheless,by March 2012,ZeniMax
haddeveloped a prototype VR headset advanced enough toshowcase at
an E3Convention. 2 !d.at11. EntersLuckey.By April2012, after
yearsof tinkeringand experimentation,Luckey had developed a
prototype VR headset-the Rift?!d.John Carmack, a ZeniMax employee
whohad
uniqueprogrammingskills,discoveredtheRiftwhilebrowsinganInternetforum.!d.He
contacted Luckey and obtained the Rift prototype.!d.At the time,
theRift lacked commercially viabledisplay technology,a
headmount,motion sensors,andvirtualrealitysoftware.!d.at10-11. Once
Carmack got his hands on the Rift,he"evaluated, analyzed,and began
modifyingit
usingZeniMax'sVRtechnology.!d.at12.CarmackbeganhisRiftmodificationsbyadding
2
TheE3ConventionisamajorannualtradefairforthevideogameindustryheldeachyearattheLosAngeles
Convention Center. 3 Thepurposeof
theRiftistodisplayimaginaryworldsingoggle-likeheadsetsthatprovidevideoandaudio,
immersing
theuserentirelyintheprojectedenvironment."Doc.38at2.Generally
today,videogamesareplayed bypressing a keyor moving a
gamecontroller toexplore thevirtualenvironment.With
theRift,userscould simply turn their heads tolook around,asthey
doinreallife.!d. Order 3:14-CV-01849-P Page 2 of 15 Case
3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page 2 of l4 PagelD
6030specially-designedsensorsandother hardwarenecessary totrack
user movements.!d.Healso
identified,applied,anddevelopedsolutionstoaddress"fieldof
view,centerof projection,and
chromaticaberrationissues."!d.Butmostimportantly,Carmackdevelopedsoftwarethat
reducedlatencyandprevented
imagedistortions.Id.Thelatencybreakthroughcombined with
theothertechnologicalandhardwareadvances-a.k.a.the"HolyGrail"combination-transformedtheRiftintoapowerful,immersivevirtualrealityexperience.!d.at13.This
unearthingof
thegamingGrailpromptedZeniMaxtoseekaformalagreementwithLuckeyto
protect its proprietary technology incorporated into the Rift.!d.
OnoraroundMay24,2012,LuckeyandZeniMaxenteredintoaNon-Disclosure
Agreement(hereinafterthe"NDA'').!d.TheNDA placed
Luckeyunderabroaddutytokeep ZeniMax'
sproprietaryinformationstrictlyconfidential.Withrespectto[ZeniMax's]
ProprietaryInformation,[Luckey]undertakesandagreesthat[Luckey]shallsecureandkeep
suchProprietaryInformationstrictlyconfidential[.]"!d.at14.TheNDAalsoprovidedthat
ZeniMaxretainedexclusiveownershipof
anyproprietaryinformationitdisclosedunderthe NDA:"All Proprietary
Information... which shallcomeinto[Luckey's]custody or possession,
is and at all times shall be the exclusive property of
[ZeniMax]."!d.at 15. On theeveof
theE3Convention,CarmackinvitedonlinepublicationTheVergetoid's
offices, where hedemonstrated "a heavily modified Oculus Rift
headset."!d.at16.TheVerge's review of theRift waspositive,stating
that "[t]his head mounted display isreallylike noother." !d.Then
fromJune 5 toJune 7,2012, Carmack used the Rift toshowcase a
specially-configured versionof
ZeniMax'svideogameDoom3attheE3Convention.!d.Theappointment-only
Order 3: 14-CV-01849-P Page 3 of15 Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document
l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page 3 of l4 PagelD
603ldemonstrationsresultedinworld-widepublicityfortheRift.Id.at17.Moreover,theRift
was awarded the E3GameCritic Award for"Best
Hardware/Peripheral."Id.
FollowingtheE3success,LuckeyfoundedOculusLLC(thecorporatepredecessorto
DefendantOculusVR,LLC)inJune2012.Afewdayslater,ZeniMaxandidsetupafile
transferprotocol4
arrangementtoshareVRproprietaryinformationwithLuckey.Id.at18.
Luckey'sobjectivewastodevelopandpromotetheRiftasacommercially-viableVRheadset.
Id.Tothatend,ZeniMaxsentLuckeyproprietaryinformationonanongoingbasis.Id.
ThroughoutJune2012,LuckeycontinuallyemailedZeniMaxseekingandreceivingaccessto
ZeniMax's "proprietary information,tradesecrets,andknow-how."Id.For
example,ZeniMax
sentLuckeysoftwarethatpermittedhimtoinstallcustomizedfirmware"ontothesensorsthat
ZeniMaxselectedfortheRift."Id.at20.Additionally,Luckeyreceived"binarycodeforthe
trackingsensorsthatCarmackhadaddedtotheRift."Id.Moreover,ZeniMaxsentLuckey
hardwaretouseintheRift,including"cables,""customizedsensors,"aswellasimprovements
totheRift's"opticscalibration andsensormounting."Id.at18.ZeniMax
asserts thatallthese disclosures were made"pursuant tothe NDA."Id.
In June 2012,Luckey increased itsefforts
tofundOculus.Id.at19.Tothat end,Luckey begandevelopingaKickstarter5
campaigntoraisefundsforhisenterprise.Id.Aspartof its
fundraisingcampaign,LuckeyrequestedthatCarmack promotetheRiftina
keynotespeechhe wasscheduledtogiveatQuakeCon6
andtoputtogetherapromotional"cameoorblurb"ona 4
Afiletransferprotocolisaprogramthatpermitsuserstotransferfilesfromonecomputertoanotherovera
transmission control protocol-based network,such astheinternet. 5
Kickstarter.comisa fundraisingwebsitethat allows"project creators"
topost their ideasonline.If otherslike the
project,theycanpledgemoneytohelpfundit.Theprojectcreatorretainscompletecontroloverhisproject;
Kickstarter merely provides the platform onwhichhecan pitch his
project todonors. 6 QuakeCon isanannualDallas gaming convention
that idsponsors. Order 3: 14-CV -01849-P Page4 of 15 Case
3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page 4 of l4 PagelD
6032video he planned useaspart of hisKicks tarter pitch.I d.In
response, ZeniMax proposed that the
partiesenteredaformalagreement.Id.at20.Luckey"ignored"thissuggestion,butcontinued
toaskZeniMaxforproprietary information-which forunknown
reasonsZeniMax continued to provide.Id.
OnAugust1,2012,LuckeylaunchedtheOculusKickstartercampaign.Id.Luckey's
Kickstarterpagefeaturedafive-minutevideodescribingtheRift.Id.Thevideofeatured
multipleclipsfromvideogameDOOM3displayedonaRift-avideogameZeniMaxhad
prohibited Luckey fromusing.Id.Luckey prominently displayed
theDOOM3 logoand touted
DOOM3asthefirstRift-readygame.Id.Luckeydescribedthe"ultra-lowlatencyhead
tracking"-ZeniMax'sVRtechnology-as"themagicthatsetstheRiftapart."Id.at22.
Luckeyalsopromisedthatcertainbackerswouldreceiveafreecopyof
DOOM3andRift technicalsupport.The Kickstarter project ultimately
generated $2.44million-far surpassing its original goal of
$250,000.I d.at 21-22. QuakeCon took placefromAugust 2 toAugust
5,2012.During theconvention,Luckey andCarmack
jointlydemonstratedtheRiftandparticipatedinpaneldiscussionsabouthow
the Riftwasdeveloped.SeeDoc.38at22-23.Meanwhile,ZeniMaxexecutives
met with Oculus's
CEOtodiscussgivingZeniMaxanequitystakeinOculusascompensationfor"Oculus's
dependenceon ZeniMax's proprietary[VR]technology."Id.at
24;seealsoid.at23(ZeniMax
hadtoassistLuckeyatQuakeConinordertogettheRifttofunctionproperly);id.at24
(interviewwhereLuckeyadmitsthathe"can'tdosoftwareatall....").Yet,despitenot
reachinga formalagreement,ZeniMax provided Oculuswith an executable
version of DOOM 3
foruseinOculusRiftdemonstrations.However,ZeniMaxrequiredthatOculusobtainprior
Order 3: 14-CV -0 1849-P Page 5 oflS Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document
l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page 5 of l4 PagelD 6033approval before each
showing and requested a schedule of anticipated Rift
demonstrations.Id.at 24-25.
InlateAugustandearlySeptember2012,ZeniMaxmade"multiplerequests"toOculus
todiscuss"compensation forZeniMax'sroleindevelopingandpromoting
theRift."Id.at26.
OnSeptember21,2012,OculusforwardedZeniMaxaproposal"designed
tokickoff aformal discussion" ofthe parties'futurerelationship.Id.
NoagreementwasreachedandZeniMaxfinallyceasedtoprovideproprietary
informationortechnologicalassistancetoOculus.Id.at32.AfterCarmack'semployment
contractwithZeniMaxexpiredinJune2013,OculushiredCarmackasitsChiefTechnical
Officer on August1,2013.Id.Moreover,in February 2014,toZeniMax's
lossand toOculus's fortune,"fiveadditionalsenioremployeesof
ZeniMax,allof whomhadworkedcloselywith Carmack,simultaneously
resigned" and joined Oculus.Id.at33-34. On March
25,2014,Facebookannounceda plannedacquisition of Oculusfor$2billion
incashandstock.Id.at34.At thetimeof
theacquisition,Facebookknew,orhadreasonto
knowthatOculus'srepresentation-thatithadtitled,owned,orwasauthorizedtousethe
intellectualproperty necessarytocarryon itsbusiness-was
false.Doc.38at36.On July21, 2014,Facebookcloseditsacquisitionof
Oculus,despiteFacebook'sknowledgeof Plaintiffs'
claimsagainstOculusandLuckey.Id.at37.Facebook'spurposein
acquiringOculuswasfor the financialbenefit of its core business of
online social networking and advertising.I d.at 38. Order
3:14-CV-01849-P Page6 oflS Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed
08/l0/l5Page 6 of l4 PagelD 6034II.Legal Standard
UnderFederalRuleof
CivilProcedure8(a),acomplaintmustcontain"ashort,plain statementof
theclaimshowingthatthepleaderisentitledtorelief."Fed.R.Civ.P.8(a)(2).
Federal Rule12(b)(6) provides forthedismissalof a complaint when a
defendant shows that the plaintiff
hasfailedtostateaclaimforwhichrelief
canbegranted."Tosurviveamotionto dismiss,acomplaint must
containsufficient factualmatter,acceptedastrue,to'statea claim to
relief thatisplausibleonitsface."'Ashcroft
v.Iqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009)(quotingBell At!.Corp.v.Twombly,550
U.S.544,570(2007)).The factualmatter contained in the complaint
mustallegeactualfacts,notlegalconclusionsmasqueradingasfacts.!d.("Althoughforthe
purposesof amotiontodismisswemusttakeallof
thefactualallegationsinthecomplaintas
true,we'arenotboundtoacceptastruealegalconclusioncouchedasafactualallegation."'
(quotingTwombly,550U.S.at555)).Additionally,thefactualallegationsof
acomplaint must
stateaplausibleclaimforrelief.!d.at679.Acomplaintstatesa"plausibleclaimforrelief'
whenthefactualallegationscontainedthereininferactualmisconductonthepartofthe
defendant,nota "mere possibility of
misconduct."!d.;seealsoJacquezv.Procunier,801F .2d
789,791-92(5thCir.1986).Labels,conclusions,or
mereformulaicrecitationsof theelements of a claim will not
do.Iqbal,556 U.S.at 678(quoting Twombly,550 U.S.at 555).
TheCourt'sfocusin a12(b)(6)determinationisnotwhether theplaintiff
shouldprevail onthemeritsbutratherwhethertheplaintiff
hasfailedtostateaclaim.Twombly,550U.S.at 563n.8(holding"when a
complaint adequately statesa claim,it may not bedismissed based on
adistrictcourt'sassessmentthattheplaintiffwillfailtofindevidentiarysupportforhis
allegations or prove hisclaim to thesatisfaction of the
factfinder.");Scheuer v.Rhodes,416U.S. 232,236(1974)(overruled on
other grounds)(finding thestandard fora12(b)(6)motion is"not Order
3: 14-CV -0 1849-P Page 7 of 15 Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97
Filed 08/l0/l5Page 7 of l4 PagelD 6035whether a plaintiff will
ultimately prevail but whether the claimant isentitled tooffer
evidence to support the claims"). III.Discussion Defendant moves
todismissCounts1 (common law misappropriation of tradesecrets),2
(copyrightinfringement),4(tortiousinterferencewithcontract),5(unfaircompetition),and6
(unjust enrichment). a.Misappropriation of trade secrets and
preemption, Count 1. DefendantassertsthatCount1
shouldbedismissedbecausePlaintiffsfailedtoidentify
theallegedtradesecretswithspecificity.Inlightof
theCourt'sOrderrequiringPlaintiffsto
furtheridentifywithsufficientparticularitytheallegedtradesecretsmisappropriatedby
Defendants,doc.109,Plaintiffs'compliancewiththeOrderbyfurtheridentifyingtheallegedly
misappropriatedtradesecrets,doc.113-1,andtheparties'joint
noticetotheCourtconfirming theidentificationof
thetradesecrets,doc.116,Defendant'sargumenttodismissCount1is
considered moot.
DefendantalsoassertspreemptionundertheTUTSA.Doc.47at13.Defendant
contendsthatCount1cannotstandbecausePlaintiffsonlyassertacommonlawclaimthat
appliestoconductoccurringbeforeSeptember1,20 13-the
datetheTUTSAwasenacted.I d. And Plaintiffs'allegationsagainst
Defendant occurred after that date.Therefore,Plaintiffswere
required toplead itsclaim under theTUTSA,but instead erroneously
pled a common law claim. Id.;seeAdoptionof
theUniformTradeSecretsAct,2013,83rdLeg.,ch.10(S.B.953),3
("Thechangeinlaw madeby thisAct appliestothemisappropriation of a
tradesecret madeon oraftertheeffectivedate[September1,2013]of
thisAct.");seealsoInreMandel,No.13-Order 3: 14-CV -0 1849-P Page 8
ofl5 Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page 8 of l4
PagelD
603640751,2014WL3973479,*6n.8(5thCir.Aug.15,2014)(notingthatTUTSAdidnotapply
because allofthe allegations related toconduct prior
toSeptember1,2013).
Inrebuttal,PlaintiffsclaimthatDefendantjoinedacourseofcontinuing
misappropriation of tradesecrets that began prior tothe TUTSA being
enacted, and thusliability
isgovernedbythecommonlaw.PlaintiffspointtotheTUTSA,whichstatesthat"[a]
misappropriationof
atradesecretmadebeforeandacontinuingmisappropriationbeginning
beforetheeffectivedateof
thisActaregovernedbythelawineffectimmediatelybeforethe
effectivedateof thisAct,andthatlaw
iscontinuedineffectforthatpurpose."2013Tex.Sess.
LawServ.Ch.10(S.B.953)3.Therefore,Plaintiffsassert that Texascommon
law appliesto theirclaimbasedon
acontinuingmisappropriationthatbeganpriortotheTUTSA.Doc.67at 23-24.
Plaintiffs'plausiblypledacommonlawmisappropriationof
tradesecretsclaim.By
acquiringOculus,Defendant(ratherthanengagingonanewindependentmisappropriation)
joined an alleged ongoing misappropriation which had started prior
to the TUTSA being enacted. And thelegislaturepresumably intended
that misappropriation actsinitiated prior totheTUTSA
wouldbegovernedby thecommon
law.See2013Tex.Sess.LawServ.Ch.10(S.B.953)3.
Thiswouldavoidinstructinga jury
undertwodifferentlawsforthesamemisappropriationact.
Therefore,theCourtfindsthatPlaintiffsclaimarenotpreemptedbytheTUTSA.
Alternatively with thesameresult,Defendant announced that it
wouldacquireOculusin March2014.Anacquisitionof
thismagnitudebyasophisticatedpartylikeDefendantwould haveinvolveda
considerable amount of duediligence-the kindof duediligencethat may
have put Defendant onnoticeof theNDAandthetimingof
Carmack'sdeparturetoOculus.Soitis Order 3:14-CV-01849-P Page9 of 15
Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page 9 of l4 PagelD
6037conceivablethatanindependentmisappropriationcouldhavestartedduringthemonthsleading
uptoMarch2013,andbetweenMarchandSeptember2013,whileOculusandDefendant
workedtoformalizeDefendant'spurchaseof
Oculus.Therefore,Plaintiffsplausiblystatea claim forrelief under
thecommon law.Seedoc.38at 39.If discovery reveals that Defendant's
alleged misappropriation wasindependent of Oculus's and Luckey's,
and occurred after thedate the TUTSA was enacted, theCourt will
instruct the jury accordingly. b.Copyright infringement, Count 2.
Toestablish a claim forcopyright infringement,a plaintiff must
prove that:( 1)heownsa validcopyright and(2)thedefendant copied
constituent elementsof the plaintiffs work that are
original.SeeGen.Universal Sys.v.Lee,379 F.3d131,141(5th
Cir.2004).Vicarious copyright
infringementoccurswhenthedefendant(1)hadadirectfinancialinterestintheinfringing
activityand(2)had the right andability tosupervise theinfringing
party'sactswhichcaused the infringement.Knowledgeof
theinfringingactivityisnotrequired.SeeControversyMusicv.
DownUnderPubTyler,Inc.,488F.Supp.2d572,577(E.D.Tex.2007);Jack
PrestonWood:
Design,Inc.v.BLBldg.Co.,No.H-03-713,2004WL5866352,at*19(S.D.Tex.June22,
2004).
DefendantcontendsthatPlaintiffs'allegationsintheirComplaintareconclusory.Doc.
47at30.Plaintiffs disagree,claiming that theComplaint sufficiently
alleges that Defendant isat
leastvicariouslyliableforcopyrightinfringement.Doc.67at16-17.Plaintiffsallegethat
Defendant knew that Luckey andOculus had been accused of copyright
infringement at the time Defendant
acquiredOculus.Doc.38at36-37.PlaintiffsalsoallegethatDefendant,throughits
acquisition,support,direction,and financing,contributed
toOculus'sinfringingconduct.Id.at Order 3:14-CV-01849-P Page10of 15
Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page l0 of l4
PagelD 603837.Additionally,Plaintiffsclaim that
Defendant,asthesoleowner of Oculus,had the rightand ability
tosuperviseOculus's infringing acts,such ascontinuing useof
software derived in whole or part from Plaintiffs'copyrighted
materials.Doc.38at 42.
Plaintiffshavesufficientlypledtheircopyrightinfringementclaim.Accordingto
Plaintiffs,Defendant acquired Oculusforasubstantialamount of
moneydespiteknowingabout
thecopyrightinfringementallegations.Astheownerof
Oculus,Defendantallegedlyfinanced
andsupportedOculus'sconductofdevelopingsoftwarebasedonPlaintiffs'copyrighted
information.Theseallegationsaresufficienttoatleastpleadaplausibleclaimof
vicarious copyright infringement and give Defendant fair notice of
the nature of theclaim and thegrounds upon which the claim
rests.See Swierkiwicz v.Sorema N.A.,534 U.S.506,512 (2002).
c.Counts 4,5,and 6. i.Tortious interference with contractual
relations, Count 4. Under Texaslaw,theelementsof
tortiousinterferencewithanexistingcontractare:(1)
anexistingcontractsubject
tointerference,(2)awillfulandintentionalactof interferencewith
thecontract,(3)that proximatelycaused
theplaintiffsinjury,and(4)causedactualdamagesor loss.Prudential
Ins.Co.ofAm.v.Financial Review Sen'S.,Inc .. 29 S. W.3d 74,77
(Tex.2000). Defendant contends,inter alia,that Plaintiffs
haveinsufficiently pled their claim.Idat
22.Plaintiffs'ComplaintallegesthatDefendant,despitebeingawareof
theNDA,induced, financed,and supported of Luckey's and
Oculus'breach of the NDA.Doc.38at 54.The breach
intentionallyinducedbyDefendantcausedPlaintiffs'contract-protectedinformation
tobeused
forunauthorizedpurposesundertheNDA,allegedly.IdPlaintiffsaddtheDefendant's
interference caused Plaintiffs irreparable injury,actual
damages,and loss. Order 3: 14-CV -0 1849-P Page11of 15 Case
3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page ll of l4 PagelD
6039TheCourtfindsthatbasedonPlaintiff'scomplaintandforthereasonsstatedunder
Subsection III. a above,Plaintiffssufficiently pled a plausible
claim forrelief that putsDefendant on noticeof thegroundsupon which
therelief isbased on.Accordingly,Defendant's motion is denied.
ii.Common law unfair competition, Count 5. The tort of unfair
competition under Texas law has been defined asfollows:
[U]nfaircompetition"istheumbrellaforallstatutoryandnonstatutorycausesof
actionarisingoutof businessconductwhichiscontrarytohonestpracticein
industrialorcommercialmatters."Torecoveronthistort,aplaintiff
mustshow
anillegalactbythedefendantwhichinterferedwiththeplaintiffsabilityto
conduct hisbusiness.Theillegalactmust constitute atleast an
independent tort if not a violation of criminal law. Grand
TimeCorp.v.WatchFactory,Inc.,No.3:08-CV-1770,
2010WL92319,at*3(N.D.Tex. Jan.6,201
0)(footnote,citationsomitted)(denying motion
todismissunfaircompetition claim).
ThisCourthaspreviouslyheldthat"[t]otheextentPlaintiff
mayhaveallegedanindependent tort,theCourt will not
foreclosePlaintiff theopportunity at thisstagein theproceedings to
plead a claim of unfair competition." Settlement Capital Corp.v.BHG
Structured Settlements Inc.,319 F.Supp.2d 729,734(N.D.Tex.2004).
Defendant contends thatPlaintiffs'claim should
bedismissedbecauseitisinsufficiently pled.Doc.47at 27.Defendant
alsocontends that since Plaintiffs'tradesecret misappropriation,
tortiousinterference,andunjustenrichmentclaimsfail,theirunfaircompetitionclaim
necessarily suffers the same fate.Doc.79at11.
Plaintiffsrebutbyarguingthattheyhavesufficientlyallegedindependenttortstoform
thebasisof
anunfaircompetitionclaim.Doc.67at21.Additionally,Plaintiffsallegeintheir
Order 3: 14-CV -0 1849-P Page 12of IS Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document
l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page l2 of l4 PagelD 6040Complaint
thatDefendantinterferedwithPlaintiffs'abilitytoconductitsbusinessbydepriving
Defendantofthecontrolofitsproprietaryinventionsandconfidentialknow-how,andby
interferingwithDefendant'sabilitytoreturnvaluetoitsshareholdersforthetime,money,and
effort invested in developing virtual reality technology.Doc.38at
46.
BecausePlaintiffshassufficientlypledthetortsdiscussedabove-theindependent
torts-andhaveallegedillegalconductbyDefendant-deprivingcontrolof
theircopyrighted information-the Court findsthat Plaintiffs claim
survives Defendant's12(b )( 6)challenge. iii.Unjust enrichment,
Count 6. Defendant asserts,inter alia, that Plaintiffs'claim
ispreempted by theTUTSA because it
isbasedonPlaintiffs'misappropriationof
tradesecretsclaim.Seedoc.79at3.Plaintiffs
counterbyarguingthattheyhavesufficientlypledanunjustenrichmentclaimthatstands
independentlyfromtheirmisappropriationof
tradesecretsallegations.See,e.g.,AlphaPro
Tech,Inc.v.VWRInt'lLLC,984F.Supp.2d425,448(E.D.Pa.2013);("However
unlikely the casemaybe,if
APTfailstoprovethatitscoatedSBPmethodconstitutedatradesecretbut
nonetheless provesthatitwasa benefit conferredby XXPCupon VWR,which
unjustly retained it,APT should be able to pursue an unjust
enrichment claim.").
Here,PlaintiffsassertthatasidefromtheDefendant'sallegedmisappropriationof
trade
secrets,Defendanthasbeenunjustlyenrichedbyreceivingthebenefitsof
Plaintiffs'research,
technicalguidance,andothervaluablesupport,withoutcompensatingPlaintiffsforthebenefits
received.Doc.67at 31. Order 3:14-CV-01849-P Page13of IS Case
3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page l3 of l4 PagelD
604lTheCourt agreeswith Plaintiffs.Plaintiffsareentitled toplead in
thealternative,and to
theextentthatPlaintiffsfailtorecoverontheirtradesecretsclaim,Plaintiffscanalternatively
seek damages under a theory of unjust emichment. Accordingly,
Defendant's motion isdenied. IV.Conclusion For the foregoing
reasons,Defendant's Motion toDismiss isDENIED. IT ISSO ORDERED.
Signed thisof August,2015. Order 3:14-CV-01849-P Page14 oflS JORGE
A.SOLIS UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 3:l4-cv-0l849-P Document
l97 Filed 08/l0/l5Page l4 of l4 PagelD 6042