P develops and manufactures stun guns and accessories for them, including a personal video and audio recording device called TASER CAM. P sells its products to the military, law enforcement, corrections, private security, and the general public. D was employed with P from January 1, 2004, to July 24, 2007, as P's vice-president of marketing. D was an at-will employee, and he did not sign any employment contract, non-compete agreement, or non-disclosure agreement. D was privy to some of Ps confidential information, trade secrets, and other intellectual property. In December 2006, D began exploring the concept of an eyeglass-mounted camera on his own accord. D sought legal advice about whether he could permissibly develop such a camera independently of P, and hired patent counsel to conduct a patent search on the idea. D shifted his exploration to the concept of a clip-on camera device after learning that the eyeglass-mounted concept was already patent-protected. He directed patent counsel to conduct a patent search on the modified idea. D communicated with JAM-Proactive, a product development company, about the design and development of a clip-on camera device and got a detailed product development proposal from JAM-Proactive on June 12, 2007. D planned to leave Taser to form a new business and completed substantial work on a business plan to develop, market, and sell a clip-on camera device. D resigned on July 24, 2007. He never disclosed his future business plans or his intentions to continue working on the clip-on camera device. D formed Vievu LLC on August 23, 2007, and Vievu now markets a clip-on camera device to general consumers and law enforcement. Ten months after D resigned, P announced the AXON, a product that provides an audio-video record of an incident from the visual perspective of the person involved. P sued D, asserting claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of the duty of loyalty, tortious interference with contract, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and unjust enrichment. P moved for partial summary judgment on the liability aspect of the breach of the duty of loyalty and fiduciary duty claims. D cross-motioned on those claims. The court held that D owed a duty of loyalty and a fiduciary duty and had breached and violated those duties. D appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.