Bloomberg defeats AI company’s trade secret suit
In a victory for financial and media company Bloomberg, a US judge has dismissed the remainder of a lawsuit brought by artificial intelligence (AI) firm iSentium over an investment analysis tool.
Yesterday, January 16, District Judge Kevin Castel of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the remnants of the claim which had accused Bloomberg of misappropriating trade secrets in developing its own application for analysing social media posts.
The two parties had entered into an agreement in 2013, in which the iSentium’s technology was incorporated into the Bloomberg Terminal, a system that allows financial services professionals to analyse real-time market data.
But, by 2016, the parties terminated the relationship and Bloomberg began to develop its own sentiment-analysis technology.
One year later, in October 2017, iSentium sued Bloomberg for patent infringement and trade secrets misappropriation.
But, in the first success for Bloomberg, Castel granted the financial company’s motion to have the patent claims thrown out, after finding that iSentium’s patent (US number 8,856,056) didn’t describe eligible subject matter.
However, one month later, Castel concluded that Bloomberg would need to face the trade secrets accusations after the company failed to convince the New York court to dismiss the claims.
Bloomberg’s argument that iSentium had failed to adequately identify the trade secrets at issue was rejected by the court, with Castel concluding that the allegations describing iSentium’s purported trade secrets were broad but sufficient enough to give Bloomberg notice of the claim asserted against it.
Castel yesterday granted summary judgment to Bloomberg on the trade secrets misappropriation and breach of contract claims brought by iSentium.
Bloomberg had claimed that iSentium would have known that its trade secrets had been misappropriated by Bloomberg as early as July 2016, when Bloomberg issued a press release describing its own sentiment-analysis application. However, iSentium waited until October 2017 to bring its action.
Castel concluded that, under the developer agreement signed by both parties which stated that claims were subject to a one-year limitations period, iSentium had waited too long to sue.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
Today's top stories:
Women and minority reps welcome Intel’s new diversity rule
Already registered?
Login to your account
If you don't have a login or your access has expired, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content.
For more information on individual annual subscriptions for full paid access and corporate subscription options please contact us.
To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk