Hark’n Technologies, Inc. v. Orange Whip Fitness X, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah, Northern Division, partially granted and partially denied Orange Whip Fitness X, LLC’s motion for attorney fees following Hark’n Technologies, Inc.’s trade dress, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and other claims. The court awarded Orange Whip $7,076 in fees for defending Hark’n’s Utah and federal trade secret misappropriation claims, finding those claims objectively specious and pursued in subjective bad faith. The court denied fees based on the unexecuted Product Design and Manufacturing Agreement and the bad-faith exception to the American Rule.

Holdings

1. A prevailing party may recover reasonable attorney fees under the DTSA and UUTSA when the misappropriation claim was made in bad faith, requiring objective speciousness or frivolousness and subjective misconduct. Orange Whip satisfied both requirements because Hark’n failed to identify a definite trade secret and continued litigating despite evidence undermining its claim.
2. Orange Whip was entitled to $7,076 in reasonable attorney fees incurred defending Hark’n’s two trade-secret claims.
3. Utah’s Reciprocal Attorney Fees Statute does not apply to a writing that was not executed. Because the Product Design and Manufacturing Agreement was unexecuted, Orange Whip could not recover fees under it or for the related fraud claim.
4. Orange Whip was not entitled to attorney fees under the federal bad-faith exception for Hark’n’s alleged discovery misconduct or its trademark and false-designation claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Orange Whip was entitled to attorney fees under the DTSA and UUTSA for prevailing on Hark’n’s trade-secret misappropriation claims allegedly brought in bad faith.
2. Whether Utah Code section 78B-5-826 permitted recovery of attorney fees under an unexecuted Product Design and Manufacturing Agreement.
3. Whether Orange Whip could recover fees under the federal bad-faith exception to the American Rule for Hark’n’s failure to produce representative samples and for Hark’n’s trademark and false-designation claims.
4. Whether the requested $7,076 in fees incurred defending the trade-secret claims was reasonable.

Disposition

other