In Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Laticrete Int’l, Inc., No. CV065014930S(X02), 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1521 (Sup. Ct. Ct. June 17, 2010), Dur-A-Flex, Inc., a maker of floor and tile products, brought a claim against Laticrete for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of a non-disclosure Agreement between the parties, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act after suspecting that Laticrete had copied its process for bonding paint to sand.
Laticrete was a long-time customer of Dur-A-Flex and the only customer of Dur-A-Flex that purchased colored sand for use in tile grout. The parties signed a non-disclosure agreement to cover the manufacturing process, and representatives of Laticrete had visited the Dur-A-Flex plant numerous times. Dur-A-Flex instituted this suit when it noticed a substantial decrease in orders from Laticrete. Dur-A-Flex suspected Laticrete had begun manufacturing an identical product on its own.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dur-A-Flex for $43.7 million, finding that Laticrete had misappropriated Dur-AFlex’s trade secrets. The court also added $600,000 for royalties as result of the process developed by Laticrete. In addition, the court award Dur-A-Flex $6 million in attorneys’ fees, as the non-disclosure agreement provided for all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred.