Re: Castlewood Suit
Reseller, I went into SyQuest's old SEC filings and dug up this reference to their original suit against Castlewood:
>>> On or about June 10, 1997, the Company initiated litigation against Castlewood Systems, Inc. and eleven former Company employees in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, entitled SyQuest Technology, Inc. v. Castlewood Systems, Inc., et al. (Case No. 766757), asserting ten (10) causes of action, including claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks money damages and an injunction from engaging in such conduct. On or about July 16, 1997, Castlewood filed a cross-complaint against the Company, alleging three causes of action (interference with prospective economic advantage, unfair competition and trade libel) and seeking damages and injunctive relief. Since that time, the parties have engaged primarily in hearings before Thomas E. Schatzel, Esq., the Court-appointed Discovery Referee, to finalize the Company's identification of trade secrets in accordance with the requirements of the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2019 (d), which was deemed acceptable by such Referee on October 20, 1997, and to adjudicate the discovery matters between the parties. Discovery is under way, and there can be no assurance as to what financial effect this litigation may have on the Company. <<<
In this new suit against Castlewood, Iomega seeks monetary damages as well as an injunction in reference to:
>>> ...patent infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition. (snip) ...unauthorized use of registered trademarks and the selling of products, which embody patented inventions that are the property of Iomega. (snip) ...infringement of two patents and misuse of Iomega's valuable Iomega, Zip, and Jaz registered trademarks. <<<
While it appears that today's complaint filing might simply be a partial restatement of SyQuest's original claims against Castlewood, it also seems possible that we have some new issues here. It's difficult to tell for certain until we hear a little more detail.
I find it interesting that Iomega has chosen this particular time to pursue litigation. They could have begun the process sooner. I don't know if it means anything, but perhaps they were waiting for Castlewood to dig themselves in deep in order to raise the likelihood of a sympathetic judgement. In any case, I suspect that regardless of the outcome, the suit will be much more costly for Castlewood than for Iomega.
Regards - Dale |
