Taser International, Inc. v. Ward

Taser International, Inc. (Taser) (plaintiff) developed and manufactured stun guns and accessories, including a personal video- and audio-recording device called Taser Cam. Steve Ward (defendant) was employed full-time at Taser from January 1, 2004, to July 24, 2007, serving as vice president of marketing. Ward was an at-will employee and did not sign any effective employment contract, noncompete agreement, or nondisclosure agreement. Ward was aware of privileged Taser information, trade secrets, and other intellectual property, including new product ideas and concepts. In December 2005, Ward explored developing an eyeglass-mounted camera, sought legal advice in developing the concept separately from Taser, and hired patent counsel to search patents on the concept. Between April and July 2007, Ward adapted his concept to a clip-on camera and began communicating with JAM-Proactive (JAM) about the concept. On June 12, 2007, JAM provided a detailed product-development proposal for Ward’s concept. Prior to his resignation on July 24, 2007, Ward completed substantial work on the clip-on camera concept. Ward never disclosed to Taser anything about the concept or starting his own company, Vievu, LLC. Ten months after Ward’s resignation, Taser announced AXON, an audio- and video-recording product that Ward had helped to develop. Earlier, on October 22, 2007, Taser had filed suit against Ward for misappropriation of trade secrets, including using Taser resources and confidential information, breach of the duty of loyalty, tortious interference with contract, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, including usurping a corporate opportunity, conversion, and unjust enrichment. Ward answered and counterclaimed for tortious interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with business expectancy, and abuse of process. Taser claimed Ward had misappropriated ideas from his work on AXON. Ward claimed his actions while employed were mere preparations to develop his own concept. Taser filed for partial summary judgment on the liability aspect of the claims for breach of the duty of loyalty and breach of fiduciary duty. Ward filed a cross-motion. The trial court concluded that Ward had breached the duty of loyalty and his fiduciary duty, and it granted Taser’s motion and denied Ward’s cross-motion. Ward appealed.