Orange Lamp Manufacturer Wins Lawsuit Against Waterbury Firm
By David Myers – Light Sources Inc.

Orange CT – March 26, 2003 – A Superior Court of New Haven judge ruled yesterday that a local manufacturing firm, Voltarc Technologies Inc. (VTI), and two of its employees misappropriated trade secrets belonging to a competitor, LCD Lighting (LCDL). Furthermore, Judge J. Monro issued an injunction against VTI prohibiting them from selling, for a period of two and a half years, any products whose development came from technology developed from the misappropriated trade secrets. A secondary hearing to determine monetary damages and compensatory claims by LCDL will be scheduled forthwith. In addition to the corporate injunction, one of the individuals named as co-defendant, Robert Cassidy, is also enjoined personally from disclosing the trade secret technology, of a particular lamp making process, to any other individual or entity. LCDL, located at 37 Robinson Blvd in Orange, which has been in business for 10 years and is a leader in the backlight industry, was represented by Hugh Keefe of the New Haven firm of Lynch Traub Keefe and Errante.

VTI, of 400 Captain Neville Drive in Waterbury, hired the two employees, John Andros and Robert Cassidy, away from LCDL in March of 2002 and employed them in the capacities of Vice President (Andros) and Head Engineer (Cassidy). Prior to this, both individuals had worked at LCDL for years in very similar positions, but both departed with no notice. In the suit, LCDL alleged that both individuals took with them proprietary and confidential documentation, including price and cost lists, technical drawings and specifications, as well as customer lists and contacts. The specific technology misappropriated had to do with a high tech lamp called the DU, which is used in the avionics industry as a backlight for the main liquid crystal displays in commercial jet airliners, as well as the space shuttle.

In testimony to the satisfaction of the court over the summer of 2002, a computer forensics expert from Seattle, David Stenhouse, testified that Andros, in the last three weeks of his employment at LCDL, had systematically downloaded company confidential information to a series of floppy discs. At the end of his last day of employment, March 8, 2002, Andros then attempted to "wipe" his computer of all data before he left his office for the last time. With recent technological advancements in data recovery, however, this "wiping" is not always sufficient to permanently delete from record all data, as the court and Andros learned. Cassidy, who remained at LCDL for another three weeks after Andros' departure, learned of the data recovery of Andros' machine before his own departure and subsequently reformatted his own laptop computer in order to avoid any data recovery by LCDL.

Cassidy asserted that he did not use any proprietary and confidential information learned at LCDL, indeed, he asserted that he "learned nothing in lighting at LCDL from 1996 to 2002 to make him a better engineer"; however, the court did "… not find Cassidy credible in these assertions" and further stated "The court finds on matter of credibility that Cassidy is not to be believed." LCDL also sought injunctive relief from the courts in the form of enjoinment of both individuals' employment by VTI for an unspecified amount of time, which was denied. Instead, the court concluded their decision by stating that "money damages would be the better remedy in this case." No dates for the hearing have been set at this time.

When asked for his comments on the outcome of the case, Christian Sauska, the President of LCDL, stated: "All of us here at LCDL and Light Sources Inc are happy with the decision handed down by the court yesterday. From the very beginning of the suit, we had faith in the validity of our claim, the fairness and objectivity of the court, and the certainty of the outcome. We feel vindicated that this decision shows that, while good clean competition in industry is healthy for > all parties, if the competition is marred by unjust or unfair actions by one individual or business, that such behavior will not be rewarded, but rather punished."