The dispute dates back to March 2000 when MicroStrategy announced that it was going to re-state its earnings for 1999. The firm's financial difficulties eventually led to the company laying off a significant number of its workforce.
Between March 2000 and December 2001, 17 of MicroStrategy's employees moved to Business Objects and, over the same period, according to MicroStrategy, that company managed to obtain confidential MicroStrategy information including "internal e-mail, descriptions of software architecture, sales documents, competitive intelligence and PowerPoint presentations."
MicroStrategy sued, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets.
In a ruling published last week US District Judge Jerome B Friedman concluded that, "Clearly, many of the plaintiff's ex-employees engaged in extensive conduct that could be considered unethical, improper and in breach of their employment agreements."
He continued:
"These employees solicited or brought with them to Business Objects a number of confidential documents belonging to MicroStrategy, several of which the court concludes constituted trades secrets, and many more of which might very well have been trade secrets regardless of the insufficient evidence presented at trial to support such an inference. In only two instances, however, can the court conclude that sufficient evidence exists to prove that misappropriation of such trade secrets occurred."
These were a "Competitive Recipe", detailing MicroStrategy's plan for dealing with its rival in the market, and a volume discount schedule, detailing thresholds at which MicroStrategy would give customers a discount.
The court therefore granted an injunction against Business Objects, prohibiting the company from possessing, using or disclosing the two trade secrets identified by the court.
The court refused to grant legal expenses to MicroStrategy and, in another ruling, dismissed a claim for patent infringement put forward by MicroStrategy.
Business Objects welcomed the judgment, commenting that the court had found only two cases of misappropriation out of the hundreds of examples put forward, and at the end of the day had issued only a "very narrow" injunction.
"This is an important victory for Business Objects, its employees, customers and shareholders," said Susan Wolfe, senior vice president and general counsel of Business Objects. "These decisions by the Court in Virginia confirm what we have maintained all along -- that MicroStrategy's allegations and claims against Business Objects were essentially meritless."
"We are pleased with the court's decision," responded MicroStrategy Vice President, Law and General Counsel, Jonathan F Klein. "Business Objects misappropriated our trade secrets, and the court issued an injunction prohibiting their use".
"Business Objects' suggestion that its misconduct involved only a single employee and two documents is contradicted by the court's extensive factual findings," he added.
A further patent infringement case between the parties is still ongoing.
