BILLING STATEMENT

Invoice #2024-0127

BILLED TO:
Smith Enterprises, LLC
123 Business Ave
New York, NY 10001
United States

DATE: January 15, 2024
DUE DATE: February 15, 2024
TERMS: Net 30
STATUS: Outstanding

Description	Quantity	Rate	Amount
Professional Services - Legal Consultation	20	$350.00	$7,000.00
Document Preparation and Review	15	$250.00	$3,750.00
Court Filing Fees	1	$750.00	$750.00
Subtotal:			$11,500.00
Tax (8.875%):			$1,020.63
Total Due:			$12,520.63

Payment Instructions

Please include invoice number with your payment.

Bank Transfer:
Bank: Chase Bank
Account Name: Legal Services LLC
Account Number: XXXX-XXXX-1234
Routing Number: XXX-XXX-XXX
SWIFT: CHASUS33

ARGUMENT

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED INGRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT EXIST REGARDING THE SCOPE OF PROTECTED INFORMATION UNDER THE JDA

The trial court's grant of summary judgment was predicatedon an overly narrow interpretation of the JDA's confidentiality provisions. The agreement's definition of "Confidential Information" encompasses "any and all technical and business information disclosed by either party... including but not limited to manufacturing processes, material formulations, and testing methodologies." (R. 127). The court's conclusion that the thermal cycling techniques fell outside this definition ignores substantial evidence in the record demonstrating the proprietary nature of Smith's processes.

Expert testimony from Dr. Sarah Chen, a leading materialsscientist, established that Smith's thermal cycling protocol represented a novel approach that departed significantly from industry standards. (R. 342-345). This testimony created, at minimum, a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the information constituted protected trade secrets under Florida law. See § 688.002(4), Fla. Stat. (2023).

II. THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS AREASONABLE INFERENCE OF MISAPPROPRIATION

Johnson's patent applications, filed mere months after receivingdetailed documentation of Smith's manufacturing processes, bear striking similarities to the proprietary methods disclosed under the JDA. The temporal proximity and technical overlap between Smith's disclosures and Johnson's patent filings create reasonable inferences that preclude summary judgment. See Capital Factors, Inc. v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 545 So.2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

Moreover, Johnson's claim of independent development is contradicted by internal communications discovered during litigation. An email chain between Johnson's research team members references the need to "adapt the new process we learned about" and "integrate the thermal cycling approach into our existing framework." (R. 567). These statements, viewed in the light most favorable to Smith as the non-moving party, support a reasonable inference of misappropriation.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Appellant Smith Enterprises, LLC respectfully requests that this Court reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Court's opinion.

Respectfully submitted,