[ETHisso2017]

>Magic Leap alleges that Chi Xu, who left in 2016, exploited its confidential information to “quickly develop a prototype of lightweight, ergonomically designed, mixed reality glasses for use with smart phones and other devices that are strikingly similar” to the Florida-based startup’s designs.

>The startup alleges that Xu plotted during his roughly 13 months working there to launch his own competing company in China and “neglected his work duties” to acquire proprietary information.

While these are valid allegations to make, I'm not sure what IP "theft" has occurred. It sounds like Magic Leap is accusing Chi of looking at Magic Leap's designs and having the intention of launching a product in the same market and with roughly the same form factor - but crucially, does not allege that Chi exfiltrated any CI/trade secrets or infringed on any IP.

The second set of accusations is also kafkaesque, by the way, as they are accusing Chi of having the intent to launch a competing company by himself - something that many, many tech employees have dreamed of (and done) without ever being sued. I'm not sure what that allegation is there for, honestly.

[pvg]

but crucially, does not allege that Chi exfiltrated any CI/trade secrets or infringed on any IP

Their complaint alleges exactly that, repeatedly.

[paxys]

Nowhere in the complaint do they ever mention a single specific bit of technology, code, design or patent stolen by Chi Xu. Their entire argument is that he signed a confidentiality agreement when he started working there so should not be able to start a competing company. This is going to be next to impossible to enforce in California, let alone China.

[gamblor956]

A complaint isn't required to allege specific IP stolen. It's to allege general categories of IP stolen. Too much specificity limits the scope of the complaint and would require an amended complaint if more IP was stolen than originally alleged.

The next stage of the litigation process, discovery, is for determining the specific IP pilfered (if any).

[pvg]

The comment I'm replying to says that they don't allege he improperly took their confidential information. This isn't an accurate representation of their allegations. They do allege that, over and over. I don't have any opinions on (or much interest in) the merits of their case, but "they don't even say he took their CI" is not true. They quite plainly do. They say things like:

"in reality, the Nreal Light incorporates and derives from the Confidential Designs and other Magic Leap Confidential Information protected by the PIIA."

[bstar77]

How are they supposed to know the extent of what was stolen without seeing the source code from the offending product? The reality is that a relatively insignificant employee up and left and had a competing product out the door in a very short period of time. Everything points to him stealing as much IP as possible and throwing a competing product together. Seems to be enough probable cause to justify an investigation.

[NicoJuicy]

And that their design is very similar to an internal confidential prototype.

Which says more about the situation.