DUANE DUCHARME, TAI T. HUYNH, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
TISSUENET DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Allograft Innovations appeals a temporary injunction prohibiting use of TissueNet's alleged trade secrets in chemical cleaning protocols for tissue sterilization. The court reversed the injunction, finding TissueNet failed to prove that Allograft Innovations used the same specific times, temperatures, and chemical concentrations, and that the employee who developed both protocols used independent knowledge and third-party resources.
The court reversed the temporary injunction because TissueNet failed to prove that Allograft Innovations used the same times, temperatures, and chemical concentrations; the chemicals themselves are well-known in the industry and not trade secrets; TissueNet failed to prove Allograft's protocol was materially the same; and Huynh developed the Allograft protocol independently using his own knowledge and Nova Sterillis's protocol rather than misappropriating TissueNet's trade secrets.
[1] A party seeking a temporary injunction must establish a likelihood of irreparable harm, the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, a substantial likelihood of succe…
[2] A trade secret claim based on specific times, temperatures, and concentrations of chemicals in a protocol requires proof that the alleged misappropriator uses the same sp…
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“although TissueNet alleged that its trade secrets consist of the times, temperatures, and concentrations of the chemicals used in its protocol, TissueNet did not prove that Allograft Innovations uses the same times, temperatures, and concentrations of chemicals in its protocol”
Establishes the core reason for reversal—TissueNet failed to prove the specific trade secret elements it alleged were misappropriated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTissueNet hired Tai T. Huynh to develop a chemical cleaning protocol for tissue sterilization prior to allograft transplantation. When Huynh resigned …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unavailability Of Adequate Remedy At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Duane DuCharme, Tai T. Huynh, New Life Generation, Inc., and Allograft Innovations, LLC, (collectively Allograft Innovations) appeal the entry of a temporary injunction against the use of alleged trade secrets belonging to TissueNet Distribution Services, LLC, Surgical Tissue Network, Inc., and TissueNet Custom Applications, LLC (collectively TissueNet).1 TissueNet did not file a brief in this appeal.
Allograft Innovations and TissueNet are in the business of harvesting and distributing tissue (mainly bones and tendons) from human cadavers to be transplanted into living persons. A transplant of tissue from one person to a genetically dissimilar person is called an allograft. Allograft *557manufacturers, such as Allograft Innovations and TissueNet, are required to sterilize the tissue that they harvest from cadavers so that it is safe for transplantation into living persons.
TissueNet hired Mr. Huynh to develop a chemical cleaning protocol to be used prior to sterilization, and it is the protocol that Mr. Huynh developed for TissueNet that TissueNet alleged in the trial court is a trade secret that was misappropriated by Allograft Innovations. TissueNet brought suit against Allograft Innovations after Mr. Huynh resigned from TissueNet and began to develop a chemical cleaning protocol for Allograft Innovations. Tis-sueNet asserted in the suit that Mr. Huynh breached his employment and confidentiality agreements and that Allograft Innovations misappropriated TissueNet’s chemical cleaning protocol. Although the employment and confidentiality agreements contain confidentiality provisions and a customer-based non-solicitation provision, TissueNet did not obtain a non-compete agreement from Mr. Huynh.
We reverse the temporary injunction under review for the following reasons: 1) although TissueNet alleged that its trade secrets consist of the times, temperatures, and concentrations of the chemicals used in its protocol, TissueNet did not prove that Allograft Innovations uses the same times, temperatures, and concentrations of chemicals in its protocol; 2) at most TissueNet may have succeeded in establishing that Allograft Innovations’ cleaning process includes the same chemicals used by TissueNet in its cleaning process, but the identity of those chemicals are well known in the industry and Tis-sueNet conceded in the trial court that they do not form a part of TissueNet’s trade secrets; 3) TissueNet failed to prove that Allograft Innovations is using a protocol that is materially the same as the protocol that Mr. Huynh developed for TissueNet; 4) the protocol Mr. Huynh developed for Allograft Innovations was modeled from the protocol provided by Nova Sterillis, which is a company Mr. Huynh worked with to develop the protocol for Allograft Innovations; 5) Mr. Huynh used his education, knowledge, skill, and experience in conjunction with Nova Sterillis and its protocol to develop the protocol for Allograft Innovations; 6) Mr. Huynh did not breach his employment and confidentiality agreements with TissueNet and, if TissueNet wanted to prevent Mr. Huynh from working for a competitor, TissueNet should have obtained a non-compete agreement from Mr. Huynh, and it did not do so; and 7) TissueNet failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.2
REVERSED.
SAWAYA, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hiles v. Auto Bahn Fed'n, Inc., 498 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Yardley v. Ina Marie Albu, 826 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- ST. Johns Inv. Mgmt. Co. v. Albaneze, 22 So. 3d 728 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Colonial Bank, N.A. v. Taylor Morrison Servs., Inc., 10 So. 3d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)