boxx answer
TRANSCRIPT
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 1/32
Page 1 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Margaret E. Schroeder, OSB No. 025748Matthew D. Colley, OSB No. [email protected]; [email protected] HELTERLINE LLP805 SW Broadway, Ste. 1900
Portland, OR 97205Telephone: (503) 224-5560Facsimile: (503) 224-6148Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
Mark D. Downey, Pro Hac Vice [email protected] HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3800Dallas, TX 75201-6659Telephone: (214) 855-7500
Facsimile: (214) 855-7584Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
WORKS ELECTRIC, LLC, an Oregonlimited liability company, and BRAD
BAKER , an individual,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BOXX CORPORATION,an Oregon corporation,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:14-cv-01773-ST
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER,
COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
For its answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendant BOXX Corp. admits, denies,
and alleges as follows:
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 2/32
Page 2 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1.
Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations
of material fact in paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
2.
Defendant admits the allegations of material fact in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
3.
Defendant denies the allegations of material fact in the paragraph numbered as 4
in the Complaint.
4.
Defendant admits that Eric Vaughn Meyers (“Vaughn”) is the founder of a
company called BOXX Corp. and that he created the concept for a motorized moped that is
unlike any other similar product in the market. Defendant further admits that BOXX Corp.
engaged Plaintiff Brad Baker (“Baker”) for $600 per month and a small equity interest in BOXX
Corp., along with other individuals, to assist in building its motorized moped. Defendant further
admits that the terms of Baker’s engagement were memorialized in a written agreement that both
parties signed on March 7, 2010. Defendant denies, however, all other allegations of material
fact asserted in the paragraph numbered as 5 in the Complaint.
5.
Defendant admits that Baker assisted in the creation of its motorized moped, but
contends this relationship lasted through the Spring 2013. Defendant, however, denies all
remaining allegations of material fact asserted in the paragraph numbered as 6 in the Complaint.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 3/32
Page 3 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
6.
Defendant admits that Baker did in fact continue to work in the electric motorized
vehicle industry. Defendant denies that the “BOXX project” was completed as asserted in the
paragraph numbered as 7 in the Complaint. Defendant further denies that Baker created the
concept for the Rover independent of the work Baker performed for Defendant and denies all
remaining allegations of material fact asserted in the paragraph numbered as 7 in the Complaint.
7.
Defendant admits the allegations of material fact asserted in the paragraph
numbered as 8 in the Complaint regarding the June 2014 demand letter, except that, contrary to
the assertion therein, the Defendant’s claims as asserted in the demand letter are each true and
correct. Defendant further denies the allegations that the “Rover” product is completely unique
and distinct from the Defendant’s product and is only similar in a very broad sense.
8.
Defendant admits that its product is operated in a seated position and the
Plaintiffs’ product is ridden standing up. Defendant, however, denies all remaining allegations
of material fact asserted in the paragraph numbered as 9 in the Complaint.
9.
Defendant admits that its product, as currently offered, is a dual-wheel, all-wheel
drive system that is operated in a seated position while the Plaintiffs’ product can be ridden
standing up. However, Defendant denies all remaining allegations of material fact asserted in the
paragraph numbered as 10 in the Complaint.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 4/32
Page 4 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
10.
Defendant denies the allegations of material fact asserted in the paragraph
numbered as 11 of the Complaint.
11.
Defendant admits the allegations of material fact asserted in the paragraph
numbered as 12 of the Complaint.
12.
Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief requested in their
First Claim for Relief. Defendant further denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the declarations
requested of the Court.
13.
Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the recovery of attorneys’ fees or
any relief whatsoever based on the claims asserted in the Complaint.
COUNTERCLAIMS
14.
Defendant BOXX Corp. (“BOXX”) was founded in 2009 by Vaughn.
BOXX Corp. is a small start-up, industrial engineering firm, primarily focused on the two-
wheeled vehicle market.
15.
BOXX-branded product solutions utilize the most advanced technology in the
personal portable transportation industry. BOXX incorporates its proprietary, advanced design
engineering into new technology and offers industry firsts and performance solutions not
otherwise available in the personal vehicle market.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 5/32
Page 5 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16.
BOXX Corp. has designed and engineered industry-leading, proprietary
technology products and components.
17.
Among the many innovations created by BOXX is a patented motor design,
weighing just 10.2 pounds, yet yielding the same performance as an industry standard 25 pound
motor.
18.
BOXX has incorporated its innovative motor design into its “1 Meter Vehicle
BOXX” personal compact electric scooter.
19.
Every conceptual element and part of the BOXX personal compact electric
scooter and its market and engineering approach and business plan was designed and developed
by Vaughn prior to March 2010.
20.
In late 2009, Vaughn approached Baker with several CAD model renderings of a
compact electric scooter that BOXX had designed and was looking to produce and market.
BOXX’s unique electric scooter design incorporated proprietary technology and engineering
approach that had also been designed and developed by BOXX.
21.
Vaughn knew Baker had previously built a chopper bike that had an electric
motor, a custom personal endeavor Baker referred to as his Neuromancer bike.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 6/32
Page 6 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
22.
When Vaughn approached Baker to discuss the possibility of Baker providing
assistance to BOXX in the assembly of its compact electric scooter, Vaughn had already
prepared a complete rendering of BOXX’s personalized scooter as memorialized in detail in the
original contract with Baker.
23.
BOXX retained Baker in March 2010, to assist BOXX in the assembly of the
engineering assembly and design renderings made by Vaughn for the “1 Meter Vehicle BOXX.”
BOXX and Baker memorialized the relationship in a series of written agreements that set out the
terms under which Baker would provide certain production services to BOXX.
24.
For clarity, the rendering prepared by BOXX for its compact electric scooter was
included in the written agreements by and between Baker and BOXX. This was done to serve as
a reference to the scooter product for which Baker was being retained to assist in fabricating for
BOXX.
25.
Pursuant to the written agreements, Baker was to receive $600.00 a month for a
minimum of 6 months for his work on the BOXX compact electric scooter. Ultimately, due to
business needs, these payments to Baker continued for over 2.5 years, through February of 2013.
26.
BOXX also paid Baker an additional $100.00 a month to compensate Baker for
the storage of certain parts and components owned by BOXX at Baker’s shop since Baker’s
facility was largely unused and available.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 7/32
Page 7 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
27.
The written contract further gave Baker the opportunity for a 2% equity award in
BOXX Corp.
28.
Pursuant to the contract, 2% was to be given to Baker at the completion of Phase I
of the project, completion of Phase I being defined as the delivery of 4 functional BOXX units.
29.
As a start-up company, BOXX’s proprietary knowledge, know-how, and
techniques were central to its value and future prospects. Because of this, the written agreements
by and between BOXX and Baker included strict confidentiality provisions. The agreements,
attached as Exhibit A, further included terms that: (1) prohibited Baker from using BOXX’s
resources and know-how to further Baker’s own efforts; and (2) competing with BOXX during
the relationship and for four years or 48 months after the termination of Baker and BOXX’s
relationship, which would be marked by BOXX’s receipt of a signed Termination Certification
included in Baker’s contract.
30.
More specifically, the executed Confidentiality Agreement provided that BOXX
was to solely maintain all rights, title and ownership to any and all “inventions, process, designs,
technology, information, software, documentation, illustrations, artwork, photographs,
trademarks, materials, original works of authorship or trade secrets that [Baker may] conceive,
develop or reduce to practice, during the Relationship, whether alone or jointly with others, and
which relate to the business of [BOXX].”
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 8/32
Page 8 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
31.
The terms of the written agreement between the parties established that all the
work performed by Baker from the inception of the relationship with BOXX in March 2010 were
to be deemed “works-made-for-hire” as defined under the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, as
amended (the “Act”), and as a result, vested solely with BOXX.
32.
BOXX awarded Baker the equity in the Summer of 2012 despite the fact that:
(1) Phase I was not complete because all four units had not been delivered; and (2) Baker caused
a fire destroying one of the four units.
33.
Baker demanded that he receive an additional $4,000 and .25% of BOXX stock to
complete the Phase I prototypes. Because BOXX had already paid Baker’s monthly salary,
given Baker 2% equity, and had to figure out how to pay for the replacements of the assets
destroyed in the fire caused by Baker, BOXX decided that a suspension of the project was
necessary in order to evaluate the situation. In June 2012, BOXX made the strategic
determination to refocus the remaining project assets to fundraising efforts, despite not being in
proper position with its four deliverable units for funding. While this evaluation occurred and
new money was raised, BOXX requested that Baker temporarily stop his work on the project
while BOXX determined how it would pay for the replacement assets.
34.
Baker represented that during this interim period he was going to school. Baker
further represented that the only work he was performing had nothing to do with vehicles and/or
any competitive markets, or even starting a new company.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 9/32
Page 9 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
35.
Specifically, Baker represented that he was working for Wyden + Kennedy to
build “props” for their advertising clients and that he would be ready to get back to work when
BOXX was ready to move forward with the next stage of production.
36.
BOXX had planned to resume the project as soon as the evaluation was complete
and Baker’s work schedule would allow, factoring in Baker’s contractual obligations to Wyden +
Kennedy. BOXX had planned on this occurring by September of 2012.
37.
However, BOXX was forced to postpone that next stage of work until February
2013 because of Baker. It took BOXX until January 2013 to raise enough capital to replace the
assets that Baker burned down and the additional $4,000 Baker claimed to need to complete the
job. When BOXX prepared to resume the project, Baker raised his demand from $4,000 to
$6,000 and indicated an unwillingness to complete the project without this additional fee, despite
having already been paid fully under the original contract. This demand left BOXX once more
scrambling to re-arrange its budget to pay Baker more than the original contract price.
38.
In February 2013, BOXX agreed to pay Baker $6,000 in order to get the project
moving once more. Despite its normal business practice of paying half down and half upon
delivery, BOXX paid the $6,000 as a lump sum. It was BOXX’s understanding that Baker
would resume work after receiving the payment.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 10/32
Page 10 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
39.
As of February 2013, neither party had taken any action to terminate the written
contract or any terms of the confidentiality agreement. Baker was never released from his
contract, which required his confidentiality and obligated him not to use BOXX’s resources to
further his own efforts or the efforts of BOXX’s competitors.
40.
Neither party took any action to terminate the contractual agreement, even at the
point that the BOXX prototype was rebuilt.
41.
In the Spring of 2013, BOXX wanted an update on the project’s progress. BOXX
requested the opportunity to review the components and materials that Baker was holding for
BOXX and supposedly using in his work for BOXX. Baker, however, refused to allow BOXX
access to his facilities. Baker claimed his contractual obligations with Wyden + Kennedy
required his work on advertising props to remain confidential and that BOXX could not be
allowed on his premises.
42.
BOXX’s skepticism of Baker grew as time passed and Baker never delivered the
completed units. Although BOXX did its best to maintain communications with Baker during
this time, Baker evaded BOXX’s attempts to view the progress of Baker’s work, check in on
their assets, to secure delivery of the units Baker was supposed to deliver, and to reclaim
BOXX’s proprietary information. Baker stated that he needed just 30 days with the support of
BOXX to complete the rebuild.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 11/32
Page 11 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
43.
During this time, Baker was actually using BOXX’s design and engineering
know-how and other assets to build the “Rover,” which he and his previously undisclosed
company released in June 2013.
44.
Baker did not deliver to BOXX the units they had paid him to build until he had
stolen what he needed from BOXX to complete his Rover in late Spring or early Summer 2013.
45.
Although Baker claims the Rover was inspired by his Neuromancer bike, the
Rover shares important features with the BOXX product. Like BOXX’s prototype, the Rover
relies on a low voltage DC system developed by BOXX. The Neuromancer utilized a high
voltage AC system. In fact, the only similarity between the Neuromancer and the Rover is that
both fall within the general category of electric vehicles. This is particularly ironic, given that
one tactic Baker used to evade BOXX’s requests for the completed units was to claim that the
low voltage system was ineffective and demand BOXX consider using a higher 72 voltage
system.
46.
Additionally, Baker’s Rover utilizes similar component technologies as BOXX’s
prototype. For example, BOXX created custom controllers to be used in its products. Baker was
given access to these controllers’ use profiles and firmwares and the proprietary materials behind
their design implementation so that he could build BOXX’s units. The Rover’s controllers’
custom use profiles and specs are inexplicably and strikingly similar to BOXX’s components
developed and/or employed by BOXX in designing its control systems. Unlike the BOXX and
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 12/32
Page 12 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Rover DC systems, these components and controller systems are not part of the Neuromancer
bike’s design and operation.
47.
Given the substantial similarities between the two products, it is clear that Baker
used his knowledge of BOXX’s proprietary materials, techniques, know-how, engineering
approaches, business plan, marketing approach, product market space and BOXX’s technology
in the Rover.
48.
Moreover, while Baker was developing his Rover, he used a method of
prototyping that was virtually identical to BOXX’s method of prototyping. While supposedly
working for BOXX, Baker had been provided BOXX’s proprietary engineering practices and
prototyping approach. This approach involves using all aluminum grade construction, producing
multiple units at a time to demonstrate a level of product manufacturability, and implementing a
full CAD assembly design. This is particularly odd, not only because Baker had no previous
experience in similar systems, but because Baker had stalled building BOXX’s units by initially
arguing against continuing to use all aluminum builds and prototyping multiple units at the same
time he was using these methods in building the Rover.
49.
Given the complexity of designing electric vehicles like the Rover and BOXX’s
prototype, it is clear that Baker was conceptualizing, developing, and producing the Rover while
being paid by BOXX and retaining complete control over BOXX’s prototypes and assets.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 13/32
Page 13 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
50.
Not only did Baker develop his new competing company while “working” for
BOXX, Baker added insult to injury by strategically timing the Rover’s release based on his
knowledge of BOXX’s confidential business plans, including its time frame for development,
to gain a competitive edge and market timing pursuant to the forecasts prepared by BOXX.
Baker even continued accessing BOXX materials through his email without BOXX’s permission
after the Rover was released.
51.
BOXX did not learn of Baker’s involvement with the Rover until March 2014,
when a potential BOXX investor found a public press article about Baker where he mentioned
BOXX. In the article, attached as Exhibit B, Baker admits he learned about designing and
manufacturing electric vehicles through his relationship with BOXX. The article states:
But an opportunity at another Portland company showed Brad the practicality of thinking small. He landed an engineering gig at Boxx Corp,a tiny company developing a tiny product: the “1-meter vehicle,” anelectric scooter that basically looks like a computer case with wheels.Unlike at GM, Brad loved the product. Like at GM, business prospectslooked dismal. Enamored with the idea of pint-sized electrictransportation, but disillusioned with the financial ledgers at Boxx,Brad decided to break out on his own.
This article not only disparaged BOXX, it damaged BOXX’s investor prospects while increasing
Baker’s prospects.
52.
When BOXX learned of Baker’s deception, BOXX sent a cease and desist letter
to Baker in an attempt to avoid litigation, protect its interests, and uphold its contract. Rather
than upholding his contract with BOXX or engaging in meaningful settlement negotiations,
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 14/32
Page 14 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Baker raced to the courthouse to be the first to file suit to circumvent BOXX’s goals and attempt
to gain a strategic advantage over BOXX once again by being plaintiff.
FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
(Breach of Contract)
53.
BOXX incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
54.
BOXX and Baker memorialized their contract on March 7, 2010 by signing
written instruments to reflect their agreement, which attached to this Answer as Exhibit A. All
conditions precedent have occurred or been performed.
55.
The agreement provides that Baker’s fee and equity in BOXX would be paid
subject to the completion of program milestones.
56.
The written agreement by and between BOXX and Baker specifically provided
that Baker was to hold in the strictest confidence and was further not to disclose to any third
party:
…any information disclosed during the Relationship, by or relating to theCompany or any Third Party, whether of a technical, engineering, patents,marketing, business methods, programs or other nature (including, withoutlimitation, trade secrets, know-how, and information relating to thetechnology, clients, customer base, business plans, marketing activities,finances, product development and designs present and forthcoming…),that generally is not know[n] to the public.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 15/32
Page 15 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
57.
The confidentiality and non-disclosure of BOXX’s information was a condition to
BOXX’s engagement of Baker, and was at the core of the written agreements by and between
Baker and BOXX.
58.
Similarly, the agreement states that BOXX would provide Baker an email account
for the purposes of facilitating correspondence regarding its business and prototype and keeping
all digital materials within BOXX’s control. The agreement limits the use of the email account
to these purposes.
59.
The agreement also includes non-compete and non-solicit covenants that
restricted Baker from competing with the business of BOXX, diverting business from BOXX or
disparaging BOXX, its products or personnel of BOXX, for 48 months after the termination of
Baker’s relationship with BOXX. Although Baker was supposed to send BOXX a signed
termination letter to end their relationship, Baker has yet to deliver BOXX a signed letter.
60.
Baker first breached the agreement after he had been fully compensated under the
contract when he refused to perform until he had received an additional $6,000 and .25% interest
in BOXX.
61.
Baker committed his second breach when, at the same time as he was providing
services as a primary contractor for BOXX, Baker surreptitiously created a head-to-head
competing product now known as “Rover” (a term which originated at BOXX), an electric
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 16/32
Page 16 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
scooter that is substantially similar to BOXX’s product in that the products share: (1) virtually
the same features including a drive train, controllers, electronics, and programming; (2) a
manufacturing procedure using all aluminum builds and multiple unit engineering and
prototyping; and (3) a business-model including the same marketing approach, use, product
specs, target market, and cost.
62.
Baker additionally breached the agreement when he accessed BOXX’s system
through the email account BOXX provided him for his own purposes as developer of the Rover
rather than to represent and disclose all his actions to BOXX.
63.
Finally, Baker breached the written agreement when he disparaged BOXX in a
public press article.
64.
As a result of Baker’s breach, BOXX has suffered significant actual damages
including: (1) paying Baker the contracted price for work he failed to fully perform; (2) paying
Baker $6,000 more than the awarded contract price; (3) damage to investor prospects; (4) a loss
of BOXX’s potential profits; (5) damage to the value of BOXX’s proprietary information and
invested in and developed techniques; and (6) damage to assets.
SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
(Violation of U.S. Copyright Act of 1976)
65.
BOXX incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 17/32
Page 17 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
66.
Baker’s efforts were part of a contribution to a collective work, were specifically
ordered or commissioned by BOXX, and were made under the terms of the Confidentiality
Agreement. This arrangement complies with the elevated works-made-for-hire standards for
independent contractors under the Act.
67.
All the work performed by Baker from the inception of the relationship with
BOXX in March 2010 were deemed “works-made-for-hire” as defined under the U.S. Copyright
Act of 1976, as amended (the “Act”), and thus vested solely with BOXX (see Ex. A, Section 3 of
the Confidentiality Agreement).
68.
As a result, all intellectual property stemming from the inventions, creations,
developments and progress Baker made on any competing products, including but not limited to
the Rover electric scooter now being marketed and sold by Plaintiff Works Electric, LLC
(“Works”), are the sole property of BOXX.
69.
However, even if the Rover was not a work-made-for-hire, the Rover infringes on
BOXX’s copyright on its prototype and component designs, business product model and market
segment, which are original works of authorship fixed in a tangible mean of expression and
provided to Baker, by using Rover’s substantially similar design with virtually identical
components that could only have been derived from BOXX’s copyrighted design and business
model.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 18/32
Page 18 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
70.
Baker knew and intended to infringe on BOXX’s copyright, as evidenced by the
fact that, at the same time Baker was providing services as a primary contractor with BOXX,
Baker was also creating a head-to-head competing product now known as “Rover” (a term which
originated at BOXX), an electric scooter whose drive train, controllers, electronics,
programming, use, target market, cost, business-model, and marketing approach are substantially
the same as those of the BOXX product.
71.
As a result of Baker’s breach, BOXX has suffered significant actual damages
including: (1) a loss in value of potential licensing agreements for its technologies; (2) damage
to investor prospects; (3) a loss of BOXX’s potential profits; (4) loss of market position; and
(5) damage to the value of BOXX’s proprietary information.
72.
Because Works infringed on BOXX’s copyright by marketing and selling the
infringing Rover, BOXX is entitled to recover its actual damages as well as any profits of Works
under 17 U.S. Code § 504(a).
73.
Because Baker knowingly and intentionally infringed on BOXX’s copyright,
BOXX is entitled to recover statutory damages of $750 to $150,000 per infringement under 17
U.S. Code § 504(c).
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 19/32
Page 19 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
(Oregon Trade Secrets Act)
74.
BOXX incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
75.
BOXX’s designs, devices, manufacturing techniques, prototyping methods and
other proprietary information constitute trade secrets as defined by ORS 646.461(4) because
their value was, in large part, due to: (1) the fact that they were not generally known to the
public or to competitors; and (2) BOXX took reasonable efforts under the circumstances to
maintain their secrecy, including having employees and independent contractors sign contracts
imposing a duty not to disclose such secrets and limiting digital access to work-related activities.
76.
Baker’s use of BOXX’s trade secrets and disclosure of those trade secrets to
Works without BOXX’s consent constitutes a misappropriation under ORS 646.461(2) because
Baker knew that he had a duty to maintain BOXX’s trade secrets and limit their use.
77.
Works’s use of BOXX’s trade secrets without BOXX’s consent constitutes a
misappropriation under ORS 636.461(2) because: (1) Works’s knowledge of BOXX’s trade
secrets were derived through Baker; and (2) Works knew that Baker owed a duty to BOXX.
78.
Baker’s misappropriation and use of BOXX’s trade secrets for his own benefit
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 20/32
Page 20 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
directly violate the Oregon Trade Secrets Act, which provides further remedies for companies
whose trade secrets have been misappropriated.
79.
Works and Baker continue to misappropriate BOXX’s trade secrets and refuse to
comply with BOXX’s requests that they cease and desist this misappropriation. BOXX has and
will continue to suffer irreparable harm if this is not stopped.
80.
In Section 9 of Exhibit A attached hereto, Baker admitted that BOXX would
suffer irreparable harm and is entitled to an immediate injunction to restrain a breach or prevent a
potential breach of confidentiality from occurring as a part of his contract with BOXX.
81.
ORS 646.463 authorizes the Court to enter a temporary, preliminary, and/or
permanent injunction to protect a trade secret and eliminate the commercial advantage that
would otherwise be derived from the misappropriation.
82.
Because BOXX has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, that it
will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of immediate injunctive relief, and that equitable
considerations weigh in favor of imposing an injunction, BOXX requests that the Court impose
an injunction preventing Works and Baker from continuing to misappropriate BOXX’s trade
secrets, order that Works and Baker turn over all of BOXX’s proprietary materials, including any
materials that utilize or reflect BOXX’s proprietary materials, and make any other orders this
Court finds necessary to protect BOXX’s trade secrets.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 21/32
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 22/32
Page 22 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
87.
Baker and Works have and continue to intentionally exercise control over this
information in a manner inconsistent with BOXX’s rights as owner of this information.
88.
Additionally, Baker intentionally exercised exclusive dominion and control over
BOXX’s materials and prototypes to the exclusion of BOXX when Baker refused BOXX access
to this property in the Spring and Summer of 2013.
89.
BOXX did and does not consent to this significant interference.
90.
As such, BOXX is entitled to recover the full value of its property prior to
Plaintiffs’ conversion.
FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM
(Trespass to Chattels)
91.
BOXX incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
92.
In the alternative, the interference described in the Fourth Counterclaim above is a
trespass to chattels.
93.
Baker and Works’ interference is and was a substantial factor in causing BOXX’s
harm.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 23/32
Page 23 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
94.
As such, BOXX is entitled to damages based on the actual impairment to and lost
use of its property.
SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM
(Negligence)
95.
BOXX incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
96.
Baker had a contractual duty to provide certain services to BOXX. As part of
these services, Baker received temporary possession of BOXX’s assets for his use in completing
the services.
97.
While in possession of these assets, a fire destroyed some of BOXX’s assets.
98.
Baker had a duty to reasonably protect these assets while they were in his
possession and to use reasonable care in performing his services.
99.
Baker breached that duty when he caused a fire that destroyed these assets.
100.
As a proximate cause of this breach, BOXX suffered damages from losing these
assets and having to replace them.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 24/32
Page 24 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM
(Computer Fraud and Abuse Act)
101.
BOXX incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
102.
BOXX’s computer, including its data storage facility and communications
facility, is a “protected computer” as defined by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(e)(1) and (e)(2) because it is
used in and/or affects interstate commerce and/or communications.
103.
Baker exceeded his authorized access to BOXX’s computer when he accessed it
after releasing the Rover and obtained information from it.
104.
This action was intentional, constituting a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2).
105.
By exceeding his authorized access and obtaining valuable information and data,
Baker furthered a fraud on BOXX.
106.
Because Baker exceeded his authorization knowingly and with the intent to
defraud, Baker’s actions also constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4).
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 25/32
Page 25 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
107.
These actions caused significant loss, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)
including the cost of responding to Baker’s violations of this statute, conducting a damage
assessment, lost revenue, and lost proprietary information.
108.
Baker’s conduct has caused a loss to BOXX during a one-year period aggregating
at least $5,000.
109.
As a result, BOXX seeks to recover all relief to which it may be entitled under
18 U.S.C. § 1030(g) including compensatory and punitive damages.
EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM
(Electronic Communications Privacy Act – 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 - 2712)
110.
BOXX incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
111.
BOXX’s computers, servers, and operating system are facilities through which
electronic communication services are provided to its users and customers.
112.
Baker knowingly and intentionally accessed these facilities in excess of any
authorization granted by BOXX.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 26/32
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 27/32
Page 27 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
119.
Plaintiffs had an appreciation and knowledge of the benefits they derived from
their actions and the fact that they were diminishing BOXX’s ability to derive similar benefits.
120.
It would be inequitable for Plaintiffs to retain the profits they derived from their
unauthorized and damaging use of BOXX’s assets.
121.
Therefore, Plaintiffs should disgorge their ill-gotten profits.
122.
Additionally, it would be inequitable for Baker to keep the money and equity he
received from BOXX, in advance, for work that was never completed and, in reality, was used to
benefit himself and Works rather than BOXX.
123.
As a result, Baker should be forced to return the stock and the amount paid.
124.
As a result of Plaintiffs’ actions, BOXX has suffered and continues to suffer
irreparable harm for which BOXX has no adequate remedy at law, and which will continue
unless Plaintiffs’ actions are enjoined.
TENTH COUNTERCLAIM
(Fraud)
125.
BOXX incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 28/32
Page 28 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
126.
Baker represented to BOXX that: (1) he was performing his contractual
obligations when, in fact, he was working to benefit himself and Works; and (2) Baker could not
allow BOXX access to his facilities where BOXX assets were being stored because of
contractual obligations to Wyden + Kennedy, when no such contractual obligation was
implicated.
127.
Baker knew these statements were false when he made them.
128.
Baker promised to continue working when: (1) he received $4,000 and .25%
more equity; and (2) he received $6,000. Baker also repeatedly promised he would deliver
finished work product to BOXX in an expedient manner.
129.
Baker made those promises with no intention of fulfilling them and the
knowledge that he would not do so.
130.
Baker intended that BOXX would: (1) continue to trust him with proprietary
information; (2) continue providing him property necessary for his contractual service; and
(3) delay its development and business plan.
131.
BOXX justifiably relied on the truth of these representations and promises in this
manner.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 29/32
Page 29 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
132.
This proximately caused BOXX’s injuries.
133.
BOXX is entitled to recover compensatory damages and punitive damages as a
result.
ELEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM
(Defamation)
134.
BOXX incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the
preceding paragraphs.
135.
Baker’s statements published in the public access article that BOXX’s “business
prospects looked dismal” and that BOXX’s financial ledgers were in a poor state were and are
false.
136.
These statements ascribe characteristics that are incompatible with the proper
conduct of BOXX’s business.
137.
These statements are defamatory per se because they are likely to lead people to
question BOXX’s fitness to perform its job.
138.
These statements harmed the overall value of the business and diminished its
investor prospects.
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 30/32
Page 30 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
139.
Baker knew of the statements falsity or acted in knowing disregard of the
statements falsity.
140.
BOXX is entitled to actual and punitive damages based on these statements.
141.
BOXX demands a jury trial.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendant BOXX
prays for judgment in its favor on Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety. BOXX further requests
that the Court:
(1) order Plaintiffs to return and relinquish all ownership rights in BOXX,
including but not limited to the 2.0% common stock in BOXX;
(2) order Plaintiffs to return and cease use of all BOXX trade secrets and
Confidential Information including any customer, pricing, technology or market data specifically
generated or licensed by BOXX;
(3) order Plaintiffs to deliver any Confidential Information and other
proprietary assets of BOXX, including all technology, know-how, prototypes, production version
and other assets relating to the “Rover” product which are based on BOXX’s confidential
information;
(4) order Plaintiffs to cease all efforts to market and sell ANY COMPETING
PRODUCT, INCLUDING the “Rover” scooter product;
(5) disgorge the Plaintiffs of their profits;
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 31/32
Page 31 – DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
(6) award BOXX all damages, both at law and equity, to which BOXX can
show itself entitled to, including compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages;
(7) award BOXX all attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending and
pursuing the claims asserted herein; and
(8) such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
DATED this 7th day of November, 2014.
BLACK HELTERLINE LLP
By: s/Margaret E. SchroederMargaret E. SchroederOSB No. 025748(503) 224-5560Of Attorneys for Defendant
MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.
By: s/Mark D. DowneyMark D. DowneyPro Hac Vice(214) 855-7500Of Attorneys for Defendant
* * *
8/10/2019 Boxx Answer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boxx-answer 32/32
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
upon:
Phil Nelson, Esq.Darian A. Stanford, Esq.E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] SLINDE NELSON STANFORD 111 S.W. 5th Avenue, Suite 1740Portland, OR 97209
Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs
by mailing a true copy thereof in a sealed, first-class postage prepaid envelope,addressed to said attorneys’ addresses as shown above and deposited in the United States Mail atPortland, Oregon on the date set forth below.
by causing a true copy thereof to be hand-delivered to said attorneys’addresses as shown above on the date set forth below.
by sending a true copy thereof via overnight courier in a sealed, prepaidenvelope, addressed to said attorneys’ address as shown above on the date set forth below.
by faxing a true copy thereof to said attorneys’ facsimile numbers as shownabove on the date set forth below.
by sending a true copy thereof via electronic mail to said attorneys’ addressesas shown above on the date set forth below.
electronically via USDC CM/ECF system on the date set forth below.
DATED this 7th day of November, 2014.
BLACK HELTERLINE LLP
By: s/Margaret E. SchroederMargaret E. SchroederOSB No. 025748(503) 224-5560Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
* * *