IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—D. Mass.: Dismissal granted in bovine teat-dip dispute, (Nov 19, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Claims for misappropriation of trade secrets relating to a formulation used to treat mastitis in dairy cows were dismissed because the case improperly split claims between the present suit and a pending suit in another federal district.

A developer of bovine teat dip products engaged in improper claim splitting by bringing an action in Massachusetts against former licensees while it already had a pending action in the District of Minnesota, the U.S. District Court in Worcester has held. The cases shared a common nucleus of operative facts and overlapping parties (Ecolab Inc. v. IBA, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-40107-MRG (D. Mass. Nov. 17, 2025)).

Ecolab, Inc., and Ecolab USA, Inc. (collectively, Ecolab) were in the business of developing and selling acidified sodium chlorite teat dip products used in the dairy industry. Ecolab contracted with IBA, Inc. (IBA) to make and sell the teat dip products under a license agreement. Pursuant to that license agreement, IBA contracted with Webco Chemical Corporation (Webco) as a third-party manufacturer to actually produce the products, subject to a confidentiality agreement which was required by the license agreement between Ecolab and IBA. After the license agreement ended, Ecolab alleged that Webco continued manufacturing and IBA continued distributing products designed using Ecolab’s protected trade secrets.

Ecolab originally brought suit against IBA and Webco in the District of Minnesota, asserting claims of misappropriation of trade secrets under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and under the Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets. Ecolab asserted additional claims against IBA only for breach of contract, unfair competition and violations of the Lanham Act. Webco was dismissed from that action on personal jurisdiction grounds. The Minnesota court found that Ecolab was judicially estopped from pursuing claims related to IBA’s development of its own teat dip products.

Ecolab then brought suit against IBA and Webco in the District of Massachusetts, asserting claims for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act, unfair competition in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, §§ 2, 11, and common law breach of contract. IBA and Webco moved to dismiss the complaint due to improper claim splitting, failure to state a claim, and preemption.

Claim splitting. Ecolab argued that the causes of action were distinct, and that the Minnesota action concerned products developed by Ecolab while the Massachusetts action concerned products developed by IBA using Ecolab’s trade secrets.

The court found that Ecolab’s claims were nevertheless based around a common nucleus of operative facts and shared overlapping parties, with the only distinction being that the Massachusetts court could properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Webco. The choice of which venue to file in was a strategic one, and Ecolab was bound by its decision to initially bring the dispute before the District of Minnesota.

The court granted the motion to dismiss on the issue of claim splitting and did not reach the other grounds asserted.

The Case is No. 4:24-cv-40107-MRG.

Judge: Guzman, M.

Attorneys: Lisa M. Tittemore (Sunstein LLP) for Ecolab Inc. and Ecolab USA Inc. James A. Vevone, Jr. (Seder & Chandler, LLP) for IBA, Inc. Christine K. Bush (Hinckley Allen & Snyder, LLP) for Webco Chemical Corp.

Companies: Ecolab Inc.; Ecolab USA Inc.; IBA, Inc.; Webco Chemical Corp.

Cases: TradeSecrets MassachusettsNews