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

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

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.

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

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