This case was last updated from PACER on 09/18/2021 at 05:08:30 (UTC).

Amplified AI, Inc. et al v. Mansfield

Case Summary

On September 16, 2021, Amplified AI, Inc. and Amplified AI PTY Limited (collectively, “Amplified” or “Plaintiffs”), represented by Jacob Marcus Heath of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against James Mansfield (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs filed suit seeking permanent injunctive relief, punitive or exemplary damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and other relief for breach of Defendant’s employment agreement with Plaintiffs and violations of United States federal and California state law. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California with Judge Nathanael M. Cousins presiding.

 

This case arises out of Defendant James Mansfield’s (“Mansfield”) breach of his employment agreement with Amplified and his violations of United States federal and California state law. 

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that, “Mansfield utilized without authorization login credentials—including a username and password—to circumvent Amplified’s access controls and password protections, thereby gaining unauthorized access to the Amplified Design System, Wireframe, and Prototypes, and Unreleased Product Features. Mansfield created a backdoor to circumvent the access controls Amplified has implements by creating a secret login credential that used his private Gmail email address. The conduct described above has harmed Amplified in an amount to be computed at trial and constitutes violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1201.”

 

The Plaintiffs also alleged that, “The Amplified Design System, Wireframe, and Prototypes, and Unreleased Product Features constitute trade secrets used in interstate commerce within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1836.” And that, “Mansfield have misappropriated Amplified’s trade secrets in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1836. Mansfield’s misappropriation was not accidental or inadvertent and instead has been willful and malicious under 18 U.S.C. § 1836. Mansfield continues to misuse Amplified’s trade secrets, and continue to enjoy the benefits of his prior misuse, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by the Court.”

 

Further, the Plaintiffs alleged that, “Without authorization and in excess of authorization, Mansfield has violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), by intentionally accessing Amplified’s protected computers.”

 

There are nine claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiffs. The first claim is for an alleged violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). The second claim is for the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq. The third claim is for alleged violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030. The fourth claim is for an alleged violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California Penal Code § 502. The fifth claim is for the alleged breach of contract-employment agreement. The sixth claim is for alleged breach of contract of confidential information and the invention assignment agreement. The seventh claim is for the alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The eighth claim is for alleged trespass to chattels and the ninth claim is for alleged conversion.

 

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs have requested the court to pass an order for an award of damages, unjust enrichment, lost profits, and/or a reasonable royalty for Mansfield’s willful and malicious misappropriation of Amplified’s trade secrets including statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1203, exemplary damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1836, up to twice actual damages, compensatory damages and punitive or exemplary damages for alleged violation of California Penal Code § 502(c). Further, the Plaintiffs requested the court for costs of suit and an injunctive relief along with an award of Amplified’s attorneys’ fees with prejudgment and postjudgment interest and costs of court and such other relief as the court may deem just equitable and proper.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    5:21-CV-07179

  • Filing Date:

    09/16/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Copyright

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Nathanael M. Cousins

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

AMPLIFIED AI, INC.

AMPLIFIED AI PTY LIMITED

Defendant

JAMES MANSFIELD

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Jacob Marcus Heath

Attorney at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP

1000 Marsh Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025

 

Court Documents

#3

(#3) Certificate of Interested Entities by AMPLIFIED AI PTY LIMITED, AMPLIFIED AI, INC. (Heath, Jacob) (Filed on 9/16/2021) (Entered: 09/16/2021)

#2

(#2) Proposed Summons. (Heath, Jacob) (Filed on 9/16/2021) (Entered: 09/16/2021)

1 #4

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #3

Exhibit C to Complaint

1 #2

Exhibit B to Complaint

1 #1

Exhibit A to Complaint

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0971-16398648.). Filed byAMPLIFIED AI, INC., AMPLIFIED AI PTY LIMITED. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A to Complaint, #2 Exhibit B to Complaint, #3 Exhibit C to Complaint, #4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Heath, Jacob) (Filed on 9/16/2021) (Entered: 09/16/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/16/2021
  • Docket(#4) Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 9/30/2021. (asS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2021) (Entered: 09/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Certificate of Interested Entities by AMPLIFIED AI PTY LIMITED, AMPLIFIED AI, INC. (Heath, Jacob) (Filed on 9/16/2021) (Entered: 09/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Proposed Summons. (Heath, Jacob) (Filed on 9/16/2021) (Entered: 09/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0971-16398648.). Filed byAMPLIFIED AI, INC., AMPLIFIED AI PTY LIMITED. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A to Complaint, #2 Exhibit B to Complaint, #3 Exhibit C to Complaint, #4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Heath, Jacob) (Filed on 9/16/2021) (Entered: 09/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer Jacob Marcus Heath