Digest of XpertUniverse Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2014-1281 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 21, 2015) (non-precedential). On appeal from D. Del. Before Prost, Mayer, and Lourie. Per Curiam.

Procedural Posture: Plaintiff-appellant XpertUniverse appealed from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s grant of adverse judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on its claim for fraudulent concealment relating to expert-location software for corporate call centers, and summary judgment rejecting its claims for breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation against defendant-appellee Cisco. CAFC affirmed.

  • Fraudulent Concealment: The district court correctly granted JMOL for Cisco on XpertUniverse’s claim for fraudulent concealment. XpertUniverse failed to present any credible evidence at trial that it would have acted any differently if it had learned of the concealed information earlier, or that there was any causal nexus between the delay in revealing the concealed information and the purported damage sustained by XpertUniverse when it went out of business and lost its market value.
  • Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract: The district court properly granted summary judgment. In connection with 44 of the 46 claims at issue, XpertUniverse did not clearly identify the purported trade secrets that were allegedly misappropriated. While the trade secrets were sufficiently identified for the two remaining claims, XpertUniverse failed to point to evidence showing that Cisco improperly used the trade secret information in its products. Grant of summary judgment was also appropriate in connection with the breach of contract claims. Again, XpertUniverse failed to sufficiently identify any Cisco products that improperly used XpertUniverse information in breach of the parties’ agreement.