Attia v. Google, LLC, No. 19-15771 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Attia developed architecture technology called “Engineered Architecture” (EA). Google and Attia worked together on “Project Genie” to implement EA. Attia disclosed his EA trade secrets with the understanding that he would be compensated if the program were successful. After Attia executed patent assignments Google filed patent applications relating to the EA trade secrets and showed a prototype of the EA technology to investors. The patents were published in 2012. Google then allegedly excluded Attia from the project and used Attia’s EA technology to create a new venture. Attia sued Google for state law trade secret and contract claims. After Congress enacted the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), 130 Stat. 376, making criminal misappropriation of a trade secret a predicate act under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Attia added RICO claims, 18 U.S.C. 1962(c).
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the RICO and DTSA claims. The misappropriation of a trade secret before the enactment of the DTSA does not preclude a claim arising from post-enactment misappropriation or continued use of the same trade secret but Attia lacked standing to assert a DTSA claim. Google’s 2012 patent applications placed the information in the public domain and extinguished its trade secret status. The court rejected an argument that Google was equitably estopped from using the publication of its patent applications to defend against the DTSA claim.
Court Description: Trade Secrets. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of claims brought under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against Google, LLC, and other defendants by an architect and his firm. The architect first sued Google in 2014 for state law trade secret and contract claims. After Congress enacted the DTSA in 2016, he added RICO and DTSA claims. The panel concluded that the DTSA claim was precluded by Google’s pre-enactment disclosures in the publication in 2012 of patent applications containing plaintiff’s trade secrets. The panel held that the misappropriation of a trade secret prior to the enactment of the DTSA does not preclude a claim arising from post-enactment misappropriation or continued use of the same trade secret. Nonetheless, plaintiff lacked standing to assert a DTSA claim because Google’s 2012 patent applications placed the information in the public domain and necessarily extinguished its trade secret status. The panel rejected plaintiff’s argument that Google was equitably estopped from pointing to the 2012 publication of its patent applications to defend against plaintiff’s DTSA claim. Affirming the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s RICO and RICO conspiracy claims, the panel held that ATTIA V. GOOGLE 3 plaintiff failed to establish a pattern of racketeering because he did not identify two sufficiently related predicate acts.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.