ScentSational Technologies v. PepsiCo
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
2017 WL 4403308 (2017)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
For about a decade, ScentSational Technologies, LLC (ScentSational) (plaintiff) held talks with PepsiCo, Inc. (Pepsi) (defendant) aimed at developing and commercializing ScentSational’s concept for scented food and beverage packaging. The parties signed nondisclosure agreements to protect the confidentiality of these discussions, during which ScentSational divulged numerous key elements of its concept. Toward the end of the decade, Pepsi took out three patents that seemingly built off those key elements. ScentSational sued Pepsi in federal court. In support of its allegation that Pepsi misappropriated its trade secrets, ScentSational introduced evidence that Pepsi scientists listed as the patents’ inventors either personally attended briefings at which ScentSational covered related matters or were in contact with those who attended the briefings. ScentSational also introduced expert testimony that Pepsi’s patents duplicated ScentSational’s trade secrets in many important respects. Pepsi countered with evidence suggesting that ScentSational sometimes exaggerated what topics it covered during its briefings. Pepsi also introduced its own expert testimony to establish that its patents were essentially distinct from ScentSational’s trade secrets. Pointing to this evidence and to the lack of any direct evidence to support ScentSational’s claims, Pepsi moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Karas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.