throbber
DOCKET NO.: X07—HHD—CV—14-6o49281—S
`
`DUR-A-FLEX, INC.
`
`v.
`
`SAMET DY
`
`2
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
`
`HARTFORD
`
`MARCH 28, 2019
`
`Memorandum of Decision
`
`1. Trade Secrets: the merely obvious versus the marginally magic.
`
`If someone steals your trade secret you can sue them under General Statutes §§
`
`35-50 to 35-58-
`
`But first you have to have a trade secret. So this half of this case is about whether
`
`the plaintiff Dur-a—flex has proved it owned trade secrets it can sue about.
`
`Dur-a—flex’s trade secret claim is mostly about a commercial floor coating called
`
`Poly-Crete. Poly-Crete is a cementitious urethane. It combines the hardness of cement
`
`with the imperviousness of a polyurethane. These floor coatings are used in places
`
`ranging from the slaughter house to the commercial kitchen to the county morgue.
`
`Cementitious urethane floors are used in places where you plan to make a mess but
`
`don’t want the floor to absorb it.
`
`Everybody in the industry knows how to make a basic cementitious urethane.
`
`Indeed, by weight and volume, people in this industry know almost everything in Poly—
`
`Crete. And this matters. General Statutes § 35—51 ((1) says information can’t be a trade
`
`1
`
`Mailfid 40 “WK Vweipvf oi Tuck ci a\ Dragons of. 3mm. Momma
`
`

`

`secret if it is “generally known” or “readily ascertainable.” So people outside of Dur-a-
`
`flex knowing exactly how to make Poly-Crete would be a problem. That’s why it’s
`
`significant to note here that participants in the industry know almost everything about
`
`making Poly-Crete, but not everything.
`
`Knowing almost everything isn’t enough. Those same floor-coating people most
`
`likely know most of a lot of things. They probably know most of how cheese is made;
`
`how birdhouses are built, and where babies come from too. But that doesn’t mean they
`
`would be right to think all cheese is the same; all birdhouses are alike or that all babies
`
`are interchangeable. People knowing most of what’s in something doesn’t mean that it
`
`can’t be a trade secret. After all, we are mostly water and yet somehow we can keep
`
`secrets.
`
`So it is no blow to Dur-a—flex that many can say that Poly—Crete has three main
`
`components. They come in three separate containers and are combined by the end user.
`
`The components are sold together to contractors in a kit. There is an aggregate that
`
`includes the makings of the cement, a resin or polyol that makes the urethane a
`
`polyurethane, and a hardener. It would be no surprise to anyone in the industry that
`
`Dur-a-flex also uses castor oil as its polyol, nor that it uses sand as part of its aggregate.
`
`Indeed, the aggregate—other than one part of it to be discussed later—isn’t itself claimed
`
`to be a trade secret.
`
`

`

`But that’s where most of the agreement stops. The real question here is whether
`
`the less abundant ingredients added to the basic mixtures are enough to build a trade
`
`secret on. And these smaller things matter more than they once did because the
`
`evidence shows the cementitious urethane business has become more competitive over
`
`the years.
`
`2. “Foo fooity” and the art of cementitious urethane manufacturing.
`
`a. The widely known versus the genuinely grown.
`
`Significantly, there is a name for these smaller things. And while the people at
`
`Dur—a-flex are very serious about this claim and perceive that they have millions of
`
`dollars at stake, their hopes actually turn on a matter that doesn’t sound serious at all:
`
`“foo foo dust.”
`
`Foo foo dust is a term of art. And what’s worse, the relative foo fooity of Dur-a-
`
`flex’s product will mean for it a win or loss at this stage of the trial. That’s because foo
`
`foo dust describes the less bulky bits added to a formula that distinguish one product
`
`from another in this industry—and perhaps in others as well. The foo foo dust
`
`influences things like how well and how easily the product spreads, how it survives
`
`temperature differences, and how it avoids bubbling, blistering, molding, and the like.
`
`Anybody in this field can make a cementitious urethane, but Dur—a-flex says the foo foo
`
`dust in its resin and hardener is its money—making magic.
`
`

`

`Still, even some things about the foo foo dust itself are generally known in
`
`cementitious urethane circles. They are the common topic of conversation among
`
`industry insiders at the annual World of Concrete convention in Las Vegas. They can be
`
`found in supplier literature, patents, product safety data sheets, and even in general
`
`internet searches. You can even identify some things about the foo foo dust by sending a
`
`sample of a product to a lab for chemical analysis—but, importantly, you can’t find
`
`enough to duplicate the Poly-Crete product. There are a lot of things known about
`
`cementitious urethane foo foo dust. But a cementitious urethane still isn’t a tossed
`
`salad. You can’t figure out what’s in it merely by taking a look.
`
`The “a lot” that’s known about the resin foo dust includes that it typically includes
`
`defoamers that are added to the resin to keep bubbling down. Plasticizers and
`
`superplasticizers are used to improve workability and keep the resin components in a
`
`consistent suspended state rather than having them separate like oil and water.
`
`Surfactants reduce the liquid’s surface tension and reduce beading. Rounded grains of
`
`sand are generally known to roll and affect the pouring and spreading of the product.
`
`And the suppliers of this foo foo dust are legion. If you call them up they will talk
`
`up their products and propose ingredients. There are dozens of different defoamers,
`
`surfactants, and plasticizers to choose from. Industry leaders will tell you they have
`
`short lists of their favorite foo foos. But there are over a dozen ingredients in the Poly—
`
`Crete resin alone, so with the choice of suppliers taken into account there are many
`
`

`

`thousands of permutations that would explain the different choices a cementitious
`
`urethane manufacturer might make to create a unique formula.
`
`And the experts in this case agree that this large number of small choices really
`
`matter. The experts for defendant Samet Dy—the Dur-a-flex eX-chemist— and the
`
`companies that hired him emphasized that you can find the precise foo foo dust
`
`ingredients Dur-a-flex uses on the web. Sure you can—if you know what they are. But
`
`no one disputes that Dur-a-flex’s precise combination and the amount of each
`
`ingredient and its supplier can’t be found anywhere except at Dur-a-flex.
`
`The defense experts insist that a chemist skilled in this field can, within a few
`
`months, make a product that is the “functional equivalent” or “substantially similar” to
`
`Poly—Crete. But by “functional equivalent” or “substantially similar” product, they don’t
`
`mean they can create Poly-Crete. Whether the Poly-Crete formula is a trade secret
`
`doesn’t turn on how easy it is to make a cementitious urethane. It’s about Poly-Crete’s
`
`foo fooity. It is about how small differences in the small ingredients can be a kind of
`
`magic here, and —a topic for later—whether this magic has an independent value.
`
`If you ask the experts on both sides of the case, they all agree that any small
`
`chemical change in the brand of the foo foo dust or its ingredients changes everything.
`
`In other words, there is a magic in every combination—a precise set of reactions that is
`
`virtually never the same once any one thing is changed. In particular, all of the experts
`
`say testing of performance has to be done all over again after anything about a single
`
`

`

`ingredient is changed because it will likely have an effect on how the product behaves.
`
`The plaintiffs say this is true to prove that the Poly-Crete formula deserves trade secret
`
`protection. The defendants say this is true to prove how little value there is in the notes
`
`of failed experiments that Dur-a—flex also claims are trade secrets.
`
`But the defense can’t have it both ways. They are stuck with the logical conclusion
`
`that unless you know the unpublished details of the foo foo dust you can’t create Poly—
`
`Crete. And this means that the foo foo dust decisions reflected in the Poly—Crete formula
`
`make the Poly—Crete formula not generally known nor readily ascertainable.
`
`b. Independent value: the fruits of labor.
`
`But this isn’t enough. The defendants say that even if this is true, the Poly-Crete
`
`formula can’t be a trade secret unless the formula—in the statute’s words—has
`
`“independent economic value.” Of course, Dur-a-flex contends it would hardly be suing
`
`over a worthless formula, but there is more that indicates the formula has independent
`
`economic value.
`
`The evidence shows that as of the early 2000s Dur-a—flex had been buying
`
`components of its cementitious urethanes from other manufacturers. Because of
`
`shipping and other issues, Dur-a-flex ultimately recognized that it was worth money for
`
`the company to try to develop its own cementitious urethane formula. It chemically
`
`analyzed a target formula. Its chief chemist Jay Martin began reviewing the results and
`
`started working on a formula while balancing his other duties.
`
`

`

`Ultimately, in 2004, Dur—a-flex hired defendant Dy who began devoting most of
`
`his time to developing Poly—Crete. We already know that getting the basics down wasn’t
`
`too hard. Jay Martin had done that. The rest is the story of Dy trying to get the foo foo
`
`dust right. His work is recorded in volumes of lab books. The work costs thousands of
`
`dollars of Dy’s time. His goal was reducing foaming, improving workability, finding
`
`cheap but effective ingredients, avoiding ingredients that might soon be unavailable,
`
`and many other details.
`
`Dur-a—flex started testing the product on jobs as early as 2004. It rolled out the
`
`product formally in 2006, but the evidence shows that thousands of dollars of employee
`
`time was spent improving it and tweaking the formula until after 2012 when changes to
`
`it stopped being made.
`
`At that point, as Murti Bhamidipati the lead scientist who in 2011 replaced Jay
`
`Martin at Dur-a-flex testified, the product had desirable qualities. It was workable; it
`
`was durable; it was stable in ways that it had not been at first and which assisted with a
`
`rapid climb in product sales over the last several years. Its sales have grown by millions
`
`of dollars over the years.
`
`The court believes the time and money Dur—a—flex invested along with the sales
`
`that resulted show that the Poly-Crete resin and hardener formulas had independent
`
`value. Knowing the complete formulas would give a person in the marketplace not just a
`
`place to begin but a place to profit from—because being there would save research time
`
`

`

`and accelerate the point at which profits might begin to flow from a stable replicable
`
`formula. The time and expense saved in creating a valuable product is an independent
`
`value for trade secret purposes. A competitor would likely pay a significant sum to
`
`realize this value.
`
`c. Security need only respond to actual circumstances.
`
`Still, a trade secret must be more than not widely known, not readily
`
`ascertainable, and independently valuable. General Statutes § 35-50 (d) says it also
`
`must be “the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain
`
`its secrecy.”
`
`The key words here are “reasonable” and “circumstances.” It would be
`
`unreasonable, for instance, to publish the full Poly—Crete formula on the web and then
`
`try to claim it’s a trade secret. Likewise, it would ignore the “circumstances” to expect
`
`the company to adopt security measures akin to those surrounding the Manhattan
`
`Project or the hideout of a James Bond villain.
`
`Here, Dur—a-flex didn’t publish the formula on the web, in trade journals, at
`
`conferences and the like. Indeed, in~the legally required safety data sheets defendant Dy
`
`prepared when he worked for Dur—a-flex and put on the web, Dy described aspects of the
`
`formula as “proprietary” and “trade secret.”
`
`To the extent Samet Dy now says that when he was teaching customers how to
`
`use Poly—Crete he showed them the formulas he himself had labeled secret, his claim is
`
`8
`
`

`

`dubious. The claim is self-interested and doesn’t fit well with the rest of the evidence.
`
`The rest of the evidence is that Dur-a-flex didn’t tell people outside the company its
`
`formula. Inside the company, under a dozen people in a plant now employing over 100
`
`people have had the formula. Over the years, the full Poly—Crete formula was known by
`
`those who owned it, those who invented it, and those who made it. There was no reason
`
`to believe Dy discussed things like surfactant product names and ratios with customers
`
`whose only concern was how to mix the stuff and pour it on the ground.
`
`That visitors to the plant ——mostly customers—may have seen some of the
`
`chemical ingredients also changes nothing. In some places at some times, there were
`
`stations for the chemicals in Poly-Crete, and the chemicals were labelled. A visitor
`
`might see some of the names depending on where they were standing. While most
`
`visitors were escorted, trusted customers roamed the plant at times. It is theoretically
`
`possible that at the low points in Dur—a-flex’s security history, an enterprising but
`
`trusted customer might have hunted around enough to assemble a list of some
`
`ingredients. It wasn’t clear whether this hypothetical spy could have seen them all. It
`
`was clear enough though that seeing a few signs wouldn’t tell our suppositional snooper
`
`how much of what ingredient was put into Poly—Crete when, where, and how.
`
`That information would be on the batch tickets. But once used to make product,
`
`the batch tickets were locked up. Later, Dur—a-flex began shredding them. Still, the
`
`defense faults Dur—a—flex for not using within its plant a code rather than naming the
`
`

`

`ingredients on the tickets that tell workers what to make and how much, and for leaving
`
`the names of the ingredients on containers within the plant.
`
`This failure too might theoretically expose Dur-a-flex to industrial espionage, but
`
`it is a flawed argument against finding a trade secret here. It assumes that a party loses
`
`trade secret protection by neglecting any measures it might have employed with little
`
`burden rather than focusing on things that are reasonable under the circumstances. It
`
`isn’t the theoretical possibility of theft that matters or the ease of a security measure.
`
`What matters in determining the reasonableness of trade secret protection is to weigh
`
`the actual risks of disclosure under the prevailing circumstances against the
`
`contemporaneous measures taken to address them.
`
`No experience over the early years of Poly-Crete development cried out for Dur-a—
`
`flex to implement the measures defendants say Dur-a—flex should have adopted.
`
`Nothing then or now suggests the company should be particularly worried about its
`
`long-time customers abusing plant visits. Nothing suggests then or now that you can get
`
`the Poly—Crete formula by seeing a few ingredient names or some chemicals on a shelf
`
`here and there. Nothing in the relevant years suggested that everyone who entered the
`
`plant with eyes and ears should have been welcomed bruskly by a demand for
`
`contractual confidentiality.
`
`Nonetheless, over the years, with new management and having been burned by
`
`the loss of one trade secret to an insider, Dur-a-flex ultimately did tighten security and
`
`10
`
`

`

`demanded more. But what was done over the years was still reasonable under the
`
`circumstances that then prevailed despite many things— simple or complex, obvious or
`
`obscure—that Dur-a-flex could have adopted to protect its secrets even better.
`
`Dur-a-flex itself initially overreached by claiming as trade secrets much of
`
`everything Visible inside the plant. But emblematic of overreach by the defense in terms
`
`of reasonable precautions was their reliance on Dur-a-flex’s laudable practice of inviting
`
`school children to visit its labs without special safeguards and nondisclosure
`
`agreements. The children were shown how chemistry makes things fizz, change color
`
`and the like. They weren’t shown how to make Poly—Crete.
`
`And the secret to Poly-Crete is no ever-lasting gob stopper. It wasn’t something
`
`some enterprising urchin could simply steal off a shelf. Dur—a-flex should neither
`
`discontinue these visits nor feel it must employ an army of oompa loompas to monitor
`
`its student visitors.
`
`For the circumstances pertinent to this case, Dur-a-flex took reasonable
`
`measures to keep the Poly-Crete formulas secret.
`
`And so, the Poly-Crete resin and hardener formulas are trade secrets. This has
`
`implications for multiple products because there are Poly—Crete variants that emphasize
`
`specific properties as well as color, etc. Therefore, to be clear, the resin and hardener
`
`formulas for Poly-Crete HF, MD, TF, and WR are trade secrets because they all contain
`
`11
`
`

`

`the same resin and hardener. To the extent it uses the same resin and hardener, Poly-
`
`Crete SL is also protected.
`
`But it is the resin and hardener formulas that are trade secrets. The court isn’t
`
`convinced that Poly—Crete SL deserves extra trade secret protection because of the
`
`roundness of its aggregate. This factor seems too readily ascertainable to be a trade
`
`secret. Poly—Crete SL is touted as self—levelling. But we all know round things roll and
`
`spread. Indeed the very thing in this aggregate that rolls and spreads was explored and
`
`rejected by one defendant years before anyone at that company heard the name Samet
`
`Dy. And unlike the resin and the hardener a reasonable degree of magnification reveals
`
`all. The Poly—Crete SL aggregate is not a trade secret.
`
`3. Lesser things: Other formulas and the lab books.
`
`Now to the lesser matters. Dur-a-flex wants protection for its lab books. It says
`
`the records of the experiments that led to the current Poly-Crete formula are valuable
`
`and secret. The books show what worked for the chemists and what didn’t work on the
`
`road to creating a stable product. The defendants say they are useless because they deal
`
`with variants unique to Dur-a-flex’s experience and wouldn’t prevent a competitor from
`
`having to test every variant on its own accord.
`
`But having to do additional work doesn’t mean that prior work has zero
`
`independent value. The lab books reveal what works, how certain things reacted with
`
`other things, and they show results Dur—a—flex achieved that can only be produced by
`
`12
`
`

`

`someone who knows what Dur-a-flex did. The value of these entries lies in the time and
`
`money Dur—a—flex put into the work these capacious notebooks record. A competitor
`
`would likely be willing to pay money to avoid these expenses and learn from these
`
`records of trial and error. While some things would have to be duplicated, most likely
`
`the books are worth more than a de minimis amount of time and money. They weren’t
`
`published. They were kept inside the lab. They were valuable enough that they were kept
`
`when completed in a fire-proof cabinet. They would be useful for patent claims but that
`
`was not the books sole or necessarily even primary function. They were resources
`
`looked back at by Dur-a-flex and, the evidence showed, used in the same way other
`
`companies did: not merely for patents, but for reference. The specific experiments
`
`performed and the data recorded related to these experiments with respect to Poly-Crete
`
`and the products discussed below as recorded in the company lab books are trade
`
`secrets .
`
`Dur-a—flex also claims protections for some of its lesser products. First is its Dur-
`
`a—glaze 4 resin and hardener. The same protections applied to keep the formula secret.
`
`The same lab book principles pertain. The same development process was followed. It
`
`also appears that for similar reasons the Dur-a-glaze resin and hardener ingredient were
`
`neither widely known nor readily ascertainable. Again, if you know what to look for you
`
`can find all the ingredients but you have to know what Dur—a-flex knows and doesn’t tell
`
`to do that. The same holds true for the resin and hardener in Dur-a-glaze MVP. The
`
`13
`
`

`

`resin and hardener formulas for Dur—a-glaze 4 and Dur—a-glaze MVP are Dur-a-flex
`
`trade secrets.
`
`Dur-a—flex also claims protection for one of its failures: a polyaspartic-imine resin
`
`floor coating. Dur—a—flex only got so far with this product because the product quite
`
`literally stinks. The company put it on the shelf for possible further use. Dur—a-flex
`
`protected it like the other secrets. It put time and money into it, thinking it might have
`
`use for it if it can be deodorized. A person trying to make a polyaspartic-imine resin
`
`would have a firm if pungent place to start and a limited problem to solve. The formula
`
`would thus have independent value a reasonable competitor might pay for. This
`
`formula for a polyaspartic-imine resin is a Dur-a-flex trade secret.
`
`4. Contracts require consideration: Dur-a-flex may not enforce against Dy
`the confidentiality and competition document he signed.
`
`Trade secrets aren’t the only thing before the court. The last thing is a legal
`
`challenge to one of the steps the company tried to take to increase security. In 2011,
`
`Dur—a—flex hired a hard—headed business type to replace the company’s comparatively
`
`congenial owner in formulating the day-to-day policies at Dur-a—flex. One of the things
`
`he came up with was requiring employees to sign non-competition and non-disclosure
`
`documents or be fired. Chemist Jay Martin left rather than sign. Samet Dy stayed and
`
`signed. Dur-a-flex gave Dy nothing in exchange for his signing beyond continuing his
`
`job under the same terms and conditions as before he signed.
`
`14
`
`

`

`But as King Lear fatefully noted: “Nothing will come of nothing.” Wishing hard
`
`enough will not change that Dur-a—flex gave Dy nothing but the status quo for his
`
`signature. The status quo under Connecticut law is no consideration. No consideration
`
`means no contract.
`
`Our Appellate Court confirmed as much in 2014 in Thoma v. Oxford
`
`Performance Materials, Ino.1 The Court in that case held that promises in an
`
`employment agreement are unenforceable without consideration for them—courts won’t
`
`enforce them unless there is “a benefit to the party promising, or a loss or detriment to
`
`the party to whom the promise is made.”2 The Court held that a party giving nothing
`
`more than the status quo of continuing employment—neither offering a benefit nor
`
`accepting a harm—offers no consideration to exchange for his promise and the promise
`
`is, therefore, unenforceable.3
`
`Dur-a—flex claims it offered Dy a benefit. It says that when Dy left in 2013 it gave
`
`Dy extra money to reaffirm this obligation and that this is consideration for the
`
`promises in the document. But two of Dur-a—flex’s own witnesses don’t agree on this.
`
`Smith, the company owner, explained that it was a charitable act while his president
`
`gave less definitive testimony but also did not support this contention. Instead, he
`
`claimed the money was compensation for Dy being available to help with transitional
`
`1 153 Conn. App. 50.
`2 Id. at 56
`3 Id. at 66.
`
`15
`
`

`

`issues related to his departure. The severance money Dur—a—flex gave Dy was not
`
`consideration for the agreement Dur—a-flex wants to enforce.
`
`Dur—a-flex may not enforce against Dy the terms of the 2011 document he signed.
`
`5. Conclusion: trade secrets, harder to prove but still protected.
`
`In the place between sleep and awake lies the trade secret. It is deprived the
`
`reassuring respite of the patent. It does not enjoy the conscious confidence of a
`
`contract. Instead, it often depends on a little bit of magic: on the foo foo dust that may
`
`make something—not quite unique— but special enough to protect.
`
`So it is here. Chemistry, as the experts agree, is a matter of inches and lesser
`
`things. Because of these small but significant matters, the resin and hardener in the
`
`following Dur-a-flex products meet the statutory criteria for trade secrets: Poly-Crete
`
`HF, MD, TF, WR, and SL.
`
`The resin and hardeners in Dur—a-glaze 4 and Dur-a-glaze MVP are also trade
`
`secrets. The specific experiments performed and the data recorded related to these
`
`experiments with respect to any of the products protected here as recorded in the
`
`company lab books are trade secrets.
`
`No judgment is entering. Next, we will see if any of these trade secrets have been
`
`misappropriated.
`
`16
`
`

`

`B
`
`E OURT
`
`Moukawsher, J.
`
`17
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket